Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended until the Summer Adjournment.

Ordered,
That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if Unopposed) shall be considered forthwith.

Ordered,
That, as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if Opposed) shall be considered at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. HOGGE: Is the Chairman of Ways and Means not going to make any statement on this Motion?

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Robert Young): It is only necessary to say that this is an annual Motion. It is put down about this time in every Session and the Bills to which it relates have already been before the House and have been unopposed. Consequently, the acceptance of this Motion will save time, and I trust the House will agree to it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Morecambe Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time.

Ordered, That Standing Order 211 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill on Thursday.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill [Lords] (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, at a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

St. Helen's Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

MIDLOTHIAN (CALDER DISTRICT) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Midlothian (Calder District) Water," presented by Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 29th July, and to be printed. [Bill 217.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

IMPRESSED LABOUR.

Mr. BAKER: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the system of impressed labour for civil or military purposes continues in any part of India; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Regulations governing such labour?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) on the 14th July last.

TRADE UNIONS.

Mr. BAKER: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any legislation is contemplated by the Government of India to enable trade unions to be registered and to protect such bodies from civil or criminal prosecutions when pursuing bona fide trade union activities?

Mr. RICHARDS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Richardson) on the 14th July last.

Sir C. YATE: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the terms of the legislation contemplated by the Government of India, according a large measure of protection from civil and criminal action to registered trade unions in India; and when it is expected that these terms will be brought into force?

Mr. RICHARDS: The Government of India are now about to draft their Bill, which will be published as soon as it is drafted. They hope to be able to introduce it in the Legislative Assembly in the Delhi Session next year.

Sir C. YATE: Does the hon. Gentleman deliberately contemplate making trade unions in India above the law?

Mr. RICHARDS: No.

Mr. W. THORNE: The trade unions want to get the same rights as we have got here.

CONSULTING ENGINEERS.

Mr. BAKER: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there is any barrier to prevent a fully qualified Indian practising as a consulting engineer in India; and, if not, whether he will inquire how it is that, whilst Indian consulting engineers are able to undertake highly important contracts elsewhere, all commissions in India are given to a very limited number of favoured British firms?

Mr. RICHARDS: I know of no such barrier. As regards the second part of the question, if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any case that has come to his notice an inquiry will be made.

BOMBAY AND BARODA RAILWAY COMPANY (DISCHARGES).

Mr. LANSBURY: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that two workmen employed by the Bombay and Baroda Railway Company have been discharged because they took part in organising a trade union meeting; and will he ask the Government of India to inquire into the matter, with a view to the
re-instatement of these men, seeing that trade unions are legal organisations within the Dominion of India?

Mr. RICHARDS: The matter does not seem to be one in which the Government of India can interfere, but I understand that one of the workmen referred to has brought an action against the company for wrongful dismissal.

PRISON ADMINISTRATION (PRESS ATTACKS).

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the Report on the administration of the gaols in the Punjab for the year 1923, and the remarks of the Governor-in-Council on the attacks in the public Press of India upon the prison administration, which only ceased when the bulk of the Akali prisoners were released and which the Governor-in-Council concluded had been engineered for political reasons and were, when not totally false, at all events greatly exaggerated, and that his sympathies were with the officials who were defamed, and placing on record his satisfaction with the efforts made to maintain prison discipline under the most difficult conditions; whether he will state in how many cases proceedings were taken against the defamers and with what result; and whether adequate measures will now at last be taken to put a stop to this defamation of officials in the Indian Press and to protect the officials, both British and Indian, in their endeavours to do their duty?

Mr. RICHARDS: The reply to the first part is in the affirmative. I cannot give figures as to the second part. As regards the last part, I would refer to the answer which I gave to a similar question on the 19th May last.

Sir C. YATE: Is it the case that most of these attacks were made in the paper called the "Bande Mataram," the Editor of which is Lala Lajpat Rai, and of which Har Kishen Lal, a former Minister, is now the chief shareholder?

Mr. RICHARDS: I am not aware of that circumstance.

SARDAR MOHINDRASINGH.

Mr. CLARKE: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is aware that Sardar Mohindrasingh, a
member of the Punjab Legislative Council, has been sentenced to two and a half years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,500, on a charge of entertaining a Shahidi Akali Jatha; and if he will inquire into the circumstances of the case and the reason for the severity of the sentence?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have seen a Press message to this effect in a newspaper recently received from India, but have no official information on the subject. Without further details it is not proposed to make inquiry into the case.

Major BARNETT: Will the hon. Gentleman have the goodness to tell the House what is a Shahidi Akali Jatha, as without that information it is impossible to form a judgment on the gravity of this case?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have already said that I have no information beyond what I have seen in the newspapers.

WAGES PAYMENTS (BOMBAY).

Mr. CLARKE: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if, in view of the satisfaction expressed by the people of Bombay with the action of the Secretary of State regarding the payment of wages fortnightly, he is prepared to make it compulsory on employers to pay maternity allowance to women workers, and also to make compulsory the closing of all liquor shops on paydays and holidays; and if he will inquire if it is the intention of the government of Bombay to amend the Factory Act in the direction indicated.

Mr. RICHARDS: My Noble Friend cannot make maternity benefits or the closing of liquor shops on pay days and holidays compulsory, since legislation in India, as indicated in the last part of my hon. Friend's question, would be required. As regards maternity benefits, the Government of India, not long ago, considered the question of taking action on the lines of the Washington Convention concerning the employment of women before and after childbirth, but decided that, in the circumstances existing in India, this was not feasible. The regulation of liquor shops being a "transferred subject," is not a matter in which my Noble Friend can interfere.

VACCINATION LAWS (HYDERABAD).

Mr. CLARKE: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, if his attention has been called to the imprisonment of parents in Hyderabad, Sindh, who have conscientious objections to vaccination; and, if so, can he say if it is the intention of the Government of India to amend the Vaccination Act so as to assimilate the law to that prevailing in this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: Is not this a matter relating to an Indian self-governing State?

Mr. RICHARDS: No, Sir. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am not aware that the Government of India contemplate an amendment of the Vaccination Act.

Major BARNETT: Will the Prime Minister consider the desirability of taking steps to assimilate the law of this country with that of India in regard to this matter?

Earl WINTERTON?: Does not this question relate to the State of Hyderabad?

Sir HENRY CRAIK: May I ask if any answer was given to the question asked by you, Mr. Speaker, as to the position in that respect?

Mr. SPEAKER: My point was that questions ought not to be asked in the House relating to the internal affairs of a self-governing Indian State. My knowledge is not sufficient always to be sure about this point, and that is the reason why I asked the question.

Sir H. CRAIK: No answer was made to the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Under-Secretary of State for India said "No."

GERMAN SUBJECTS (EXCLUSION).

Sir C. YATE: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the feeling that has been aroused in India against the readmission of German missionaries consequent on their conduct in the late War; and will he take steps to prevent the removal of the present ban on their return to India?

Mr. RICHARDS: No change is at present contemplated in the Government
of India's policy of general exclusion of Germans, including missionaries, from India for five years from the official date of the termination of the War. The prohibition may be relaxed in the case of individual missionaries under very stringent safeguards, including a condition that the head of the mission in India in which such missionary would work must he a British subject.

Sir C. YATE: Considering what was done by these German missionaries during the War and the present state of India, does not the hon. Gentleman think it would be most unsatisfactory and unjustifiable to re-admit them?

Mr. RICHARDS: I think that point is safeguarded in the terms of the reply.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the German missionary who was found in the Cameroons working for his country said he was a German first and a missionary afterwards?

OPIUM AND ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS.

Mr. LANSBURY: 47.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will state the amount of revenue received by the Indian Government from the sale of opium and alcoholic liquors in British India for the past 10 years; and whether the representatives of the Indian people, through the Legislative Assembly, will he allowed to send representatives to the Opium Conference which is shortly to be held under the auspices of the League of Nations?

Mr. RICHARDS: The figures are being prepared and I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible. India will be represented at the two Conferences on opium smoking and the manufacture of drugs to be held this autumn. In selecting representatives my Noble Friend will follow the procedure adopted in the case of the Indian delegation at the assembly of the League of Nations.

PUNJAB (UNREST).

Mr. RHYS: 48.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the serious state of unrest and discontent among the Sikhs in the Punjab; and, if so, to what cause does he attribute it?

Mr. RICHARDS: The situation as regards certain sections of the Sikhs in the Punjab has long been under the serious consideration of the Indian authorities and my Noble Friend. I fear that it would not be possible to explain the causes to which unrest or discontent is due within the limits of an answer to the question.

Mr. RHYS: Has not the unrest been considerably accentuated by the attitude of the Secretary of State on communal representation as expressed in his letter?

Mr. RICHARDS: That is a matter of opinion.

DELHI (RIOTS).

Mr. RHYS: 49.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can give any information as to the recent rioting in Delhi; the cause of the outbreak; and the number of casualties?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any information with regard to the Hindu-Moslem riots in Delhi; and whether he will call for an official report?

Mr. RICHARDS: I will answer these questions by circulating in the-OFFICIAL REPORT copies of two telegrams from the Government of India on the subject of the Delhi riots.

Earl WINTERTON: Can the hon. Gentleman not give some information on this, which is really a very important matter? Can he say whether or not the rioting has now ceased, and how many British troops have been engaged in quelling it?

Mr. RICHARDS: I can say the rioting has now ceased, but I cannot say how many British troops were engaged. I understand two persons were injured.

Earl WINTERTON: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give the number of British troops engaged in quelling the dispute, instead of quoting telegrams from the Government of India?

Mr. RICHARDS: If the Noble Lord will wait until he has seen the answer, I think he will agree that it meets the case.

Following are the copies of the telegrams:

"COPY OF TELEGRAM FROM VICEROY, HOME DEPARTMENT, TO SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA, DATED 18TH JULY, 1924.

Following telegram received from Chief Commissioner: Communal tension between Hindus and Musalmans has been greatly accentuated lately by several rumours of forcible conversion to either faith. Special arrangements made for protection of the city during Id with the aid of the military On the 11th, 3 days before Id, insignificant unexpected quarrel between Hindu and Musalman youths occasioned slight not in the morning, easily suppressed, followed by serious Musalman attack due to false rumour of death of this youth. Situation promptly dealt with by police, but military assistance invoked. Situation under control by night. Hospital casualties: Hindus, dead, 3; injured, 45. Moslems, injured, 25. Unknown number under treatment elsewhere. No trouble 12th to 14th. Local authorities morning of the 15th proclaimed special closing of additional route through Hindu quarter for cows destined for sacrifice. Orders resented by the Moslems, especially butchers. Serious riots at midday in the northern suburbs of the city. Proclamation with difficulty enforced. Order restored within two hours with military assistance. Hospital casualties: Hindus, dead, 8; injured, 44. Moslems, dead, 1; injured, 25; unknown number privately treated. Police opened fire with buckshot, causing two deaths. No trouble 16th. Following night not by Hindus centre of city easily suppressed. To-day situation quiet, Moslem shops generally open, Hindu shops mostly closed. Police control adequate with military assistance. There has been no looting. Situation grave owing to the unreasonable panic and possibility of individual acts of badmashi."

"COPY OF TELEGRAM FROM VICEROY, HOME DEPARTMENT, TO SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA, DATED 17TH JULY, 1924.

Acute tension between Hindus and Mohammedans, Delhi, has been prevalent for some time, resulting in somewhat serious disturbances. Alleged assault by Hindus on Mohammedan boy, and false rumour that boy was killed, created much excitement in Mohammedan community. Military was called in and situation was under control by nightfall. Dispositions created by local authority were sufficient to prevent disturbances on the following three days, and critical day, 14th July, of Mohammedan Festival passed off quietly. At midday on 15th July, however, serious trouble began in Sudder Bazaar. Local regulations prohibit taking cows for slaughter in Delhi during 1d by certain routes leading through the Hindu quarters. Dispute arose whether a cow should be taken along prohibited route. Riots ensued and police were compelled to fire. Order was restored by about 4 p.m. by the assistance of the military.
Three Hindus and one Mohammedan are believed to have been killed. Latest reports state that the situation is satisfactory."

BIRTH- AND DEATH-RATES (CHILDREN).

Mr. LANSBURY: 53.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of births in British India during the past 10 years ending 30th June; and the number of deaths of children under one, five and 10 years of age for the same period?

Mr. RICHARDS: As. the reply takes the form of a statistical table, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Number of registered births in British India:

Year.



Number.


1914
…
…
…
9,447,300


1915
…
…
…
9,021,825


1916
…
…
…
8,856,283


1917
…
…
…
9,379,349


1918
…
…
…
8,430,560


1919
…
…
…
7,212,415


1920
…
…
…
7,864,232


1921
…
…
…
7,322,639


1922
…
…
…
7,538,956


1923
…
…
…
7,909,097

Number of deaths of children.


Year.
Under 1.
Under 5.
Under 10.


1914
2,001,988
1,264,000
422,403


1915
1,821,732
1,132,395
442,878


1916
1,793,734
1,196,972
423,761


1917
1,929,491
1,365,463
512,991


1918
2,252,034
2,052,979
1,037,796


1919
1,618,799
1,351,729
625,735


1920
1,532,990
1,148,567
498,157


1921 *
—
—
—


1922 *
—
—
—


1923 *
—
—
—


* No figures for this period are available.

ARTILLERY OFFICERS (HOUSING).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 50.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that there is a house shortage at Rawal Pindi and insufficient Government bungalows to accommodate married officers of the Artillery; that the rent of bungalows amounts to from 90 to 175 rupees a month, and that hotel accommodation is 500 rupees a month for two people; and whether, seeing that this makes a severe inroad on the pay of a
junior officer, and in view of the fact that infantry officers receiving similar pay can obtain Government bungalows, he will take prompt action in the matter?

Mr. RICHARDS: I will have the Government of India's attention called to the matter which the hon. and gallant Member mentions.

CAWNPORE (SEDITION TRIAL).

Earl WINTERTON: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will publish as a White Paper an account of the proceedings and finding in the Cawnpore conspiracy case?

Mr. RICHARDS: The Government of India have recently reported that a complete record of the case is being printed for the hearing of the appeal which is expected to be filed in the High Court, and that copies will be forwarded as soon as possible. I can therefore only refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley on the 23rd June.

Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand from the reply that the hon. Gentleman has definitely decided not to publish these papers, if and when they are received?

Mr. RICHARDS: No; the reply I gave was that it was a matter within the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Earl WINTERTON: Some hon. Gentlemen opposite feel, like myself, that we ought to have this information which is of great importance. Why, in view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has been pressed by hon. Members, cannot he now undertake to publish it as soon as it is received from the Government of India? What reason is there against that?

Mr. RICHARDS: The reason is that the Secretary of State has probably not yet received it himself.

Mr. LANSBURY: If it has been published in India, what reason is there for not publishing it here?

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether he has received a reply to the representations he has made to the Government of Brazil with regard to their failure to carry out their contractual obligations to the Great Western Railway Company of Brazil; and, if so, will he publish the reply?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): His Majesty's Embassy have made frequent verbal representations to the Brazilian Government with regard to their refusal to carry out their undertaking to allow the Great Western Railway Company of Brazil to raise its tariffs and have received `the reply that the Brazilian Government admit that the raising of the tariffs is necessary. His Majesty's Ambassador has, however, been unable to induce the Brazilian Government to take the necessary steps in the matter. I may add that His Majesty's Ambassador has pointed out to the Brazilian Government the bad effect which must he produced on Brazilian credit by the treatment of this company.

Mr. SAMUEL: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, and further ask him if he is aware that much of our export trade depends on the ability of foreign countries to raise loans here and that a continuance of the abuse of British capital will injure our foreign trade very much; and will he take steps to see that British capital is not abused abroad?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question is covered by the answer already given.

INSURRECTION.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House with regard to the progress of the civil war in Brazil; whether the American Government has sent a warship to protect the lives of American nationals; and whether the British Government intend to do the same for the protection of British nationals whose lives may be in danger?

The PRIME MINISTER: The insurrection in Brazil appears to be confined to the district of Sao Paulo, with the exception of the town of Aracaju. The Government troops are reported to be again in possession of the greater part of the
town of Sao Paulo. The town is quiet, good order being preserved, and arrangements are being made for food. The port of Santos is open, although it is understood to be almost impossible to load and discharge cargoes. The hon. Member has, no doubt, seen the official Brazilian communiqués which have appeared in the Press. So far as I am aware, the United States have not sent a warship to Brazil in connection with the insurrection. One of His Majesty's ships will be sent to a Brazilian port should this appear to be necessary. I should like to add that the situation is being closely watched by His Majesty's Ambassador.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRAFT TREATY OF MUTUAL ASSISTANCE.

Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Reports of other countries have been published, he will at an early date make public the views of His Majesty's Government on the treaty of mutual assistance?

The PRIME MINISTER: Steps are being taken to lay before the House the text of the letter to the Secretary-General of the League, embodying the views of His Majesty's Government.

Sir G. BUTLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the French, Italian and Belgian replies?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot promise, but I will consider that.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether the report appearing in the London Press on Saturday, to the effect that the observations of the Government on the draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance have now been furnished to the General Secretary of the League of Nations, is correct; and, if so, how soon he will be able to make his promised statement on the subject in the House of Commons and will it be made under circumstances which permit of a Debate?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Steps are being taken to lay before the House the text of the letter
defining the views of His Majesty's Government on the draft Treaty, and it should be in the hand of hon. Members in a few days. If there be a desire for a Debate on this subject, it can be raised on the Appropriation Bill or on the Motion for Adjournment.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be better to communicate these matters to the House sooner than to the Press?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that that arises here. It happened to appear in the Press, but, before it did appear in the Press, steps were taken to get it circulated as a White Paper.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Beyond laying the Paper on the Table, does the Prime Minister propose to make any statement which can be discussed?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the Paper itself is sufficient for a. statement, and, if a discussion be required, one of the several opportunities which still remain to hon. Members can be seized, before the end of the Session. I think the House will find that our views are quite fully expressed in the letter.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman including in the White Paper the communications from the Dominions and to the Dominions on the subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not considered that. I do not know that it would be desirable. I am quite willing to do what the House would require. My instructions were simply to publish the letter.

Sir S. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Leader of the House was asked a question the other day on the subject and gave an undertaking that these communications to and from the Dominions would be published? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, undertake to publish them?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am so sorry. That escaped my observation, but I am perfectly certain that if that statement were made the Department will see that it is carried out. At any rate, I will see to it myself now.

Mr. J. HARRIS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he promised to make a statement on the question of the draft Treaty?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; the statement is in the letter. If I were to make a statement, say by way of opening a Debate, I could only go over exactly the same ground as the letter.

Mr. HARRIS: Surely, the statement would include, would it not, some indication of the Government's policy in regard to disarmament?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is in the letter.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Can the Prime Minister say anything as to the circumstances in which the Report appeared in the Press before this House knew anything of the contents of the document?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very glad if I could solve this constantly recurring mystery, but I cannot do it. I understand that it has not been merely our experience, but that our predecessors have been bothered in exactly the same way.

Oral Answers to Questions — SLAVE TRADING.

Mr. J. HARRIS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the whole of the Reports upon slave owning and slave trading received by His Majesty's Government have been placed at the disposal of the British representative on the competent body appointed by the League of Nations to consider questions of slavery; and whether any instructions have been given as to the ultimate publication by the League of Nations of any Reports submitted by His Majesty's Government for the consideration of the special Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: The British representative on the competent body appointed by the League of Nations to consider questions of slavery is in possession of all the necessary information. The Committee will ultimately present a Report to the Council, which will receive publicity. It will, of course, be within the discretion of the Committee to decide what it shall include.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE.

RUHR (IMPORT DUTIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether the question of the disposal of the money raised by import duties and tariffs on British goods entering the Ruhr since its original occupation by the French forces has been satisfactorily settled; if not, whether it will be brought up at the present Conference; and what it is proposed to do with this money?

The PRIME MINISTER: The matters referred to by the hon. and gallant Member will need to be settled eventually by inter-Allied agreement; they are, however, clearly outside the scope of the present Conference, which is limited to the measures required for putting into force the Dawes plan.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that ever since the Ruhr was occupied British merchants have been mulcted with this tax, and that the previous Governments never did anything in the matter? Is he going to do anything?

Captain Viscount CURZON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, does the question really matter to us, as we are always told by the party opposite that the consumer always pays?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer? I endeavoured to ask a serious question.

The PRIME MINISTER: My attention was drawn from the serious question by the question which succeeded it. So far as this matter is concerned, it must await a settlement of the Dawes Report, which really is the beginning of a new relationship between ourselves, the French, and Central Europe. So far as it has been left unsettled by any previous Government, we will do our best to settle it.

PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL.

Captain W. BENN: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether the decisions arrived at at the London Conference will be submitted to Parliament for approval before being made effective?

The PRIME MINISTER: A report of the work clone at the Conference will be submitted to Parliament without delay, and the wishes of parties regarding discussion will be ascertained in the usual way.

DOMINION REPRESENTATION.

Mr. ORMSBY - GORE: 41.
asked the Prime Minister what arrangements have been come to with regard to the representation of the Dominions and India at the present Inter-Allied Conference; whether the High Commissioners are kept informed of the day-to-day work of the Conference and its Committees; whether the High Commissioners or the Colonial Office are responsible for keeping Dominion Prime Ministers informed of the developments of the Conference; and whether he proposes to publish the correspondence with the various Dominions on the subject of their representation at and commitment by the decisions of the Conference?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): As regards the first part of the hon. Member's question. I would refer him to the statement which I made in this House on Friday, 18th July. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. It is difficult to answer the third part of the question precisely at this stage, but the hon. Member may be assured that the arrangements made will ensure that the Dominion Prime Ministers will be kept fully informed. As regards the last part of the question, he will appreciate that it will be necessary to consult all the Dominion Prime Ministers concerned before the complete correspondence can be published. This matter will have further consideration. In the meantime the Canadian Government have, I understand, published the communications between His Majesty's Government and themselves on the matter.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Did the Canadian Government consult not only His Majesty's Government but the other Dominions before they published that part of the correspondence which was laid in the Parliament of Ottawa on Saturday?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not sure whether they consulted the other Dominions. They did consult us, and we gave permission. As to whether they consulted the others, I cannot say, but equally it would be necessary for us not only to consult Canada but the whole of the Dominions before we agreed to publication.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: May I ask whether the document as laid in the Parliament of Ottawa is a complete document representing all the telegrams on this subject passing between the Canadian and British Governments?

Mr. THOMAS: So far as I am aware, yes. I have not seen what was laid, but, so far as the authority for laying them was concerned, no exception in any case was made by us.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give the necessary consent so that this document may be laid on the Table?

Mr. THOMAS: We have no objection whatever, but the whole point arises whether, in the midst of a Conference taking place, it is desirable to raise what is a domestic matter. We are not afraid of anything, but we are anxious that no domestic difference, now happily settled, should be made the medium of discussion in the Conference.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can explain why the Prime Minister of Canada was unable to get any information on the subject of the Allied Conference from the Imperial Government and was dependent upon Press reports; and if anything will be done to prevent such misunderstandings with the Dominions?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a statement regarding the failure of the British Government to inform the Prime Minister of Canada of the arrangements in connection with the Inter-Allied Conference in London before the Leader of the Opposition in Canada had obtained the information from Press sources?

Mr. THOMAS: I dealt with the point raised in the replies to supplementary questions which I gave in the House on 18th July after my statement on Dominion representation at the Inter-Allied Conference. I would only add that very full communications have been passing for some weeks past between His Majesty's Government and the Dominion Governments as to the arrangements in connection with the Conference.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the delay of which the Canadian Prime Minister complains did take place, and, if so, why?

Mr. THOMAS: The very fact that I was able, within a few hours of the Prime Minister's statement in Canada, to assure the House that the matter was settled ought in itself to be the best answer, and no useful purpose would be served by raking it up again.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

CONSULAR OFFICERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the question of British consular officers in Russia and Russian consular officers in the United Kingdom has been settled; in what ports and cities in Russia it is proposed to station consular officers; whether these have been, or are being, appointed; and in what commercial centres and ports in Great Britain it is proposed that Russian consular officers are to be stationed?

The PRIME MINISTER: This question is still under consideration, and no particulars of the proposed arrangements for consular appointments can therefore be given until a definite settlement has been reached.

ANGLO-SOVIET CONFERENCE.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that no binding treaty or engagement will be entered into with the Soviet Government, or with the Soviet delegation on their behalf, until it has been first submitted to the House of Commons?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the statement I made on the 31st March in reply to the same question by the hon. Member.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on that occasion he only said he would bring before the House of Commons everything that was necessary, and was unable to give a further answer then, because at that time he could not anticipate what was going to happen, so that there was no answer to the question on the Paper?

The PRIME MINISTER: The situation remains the same, and I have promised to make a statement before the adjournment. If there is a conclusion, that will be included in the statement; if there is no conclusion, that will be explained in the statement.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the Prime Minster promise us that the policy adopted in this matter will be the same as in dealing with any other foreign country?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

COMMERCIAL TREATY.

Viscount CURZON: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to conclude a new Anglo-Soviet commercial treaty to supersede the trade agreement of 1921; whether it is proposed under it to hand over any sums deposited in British banks by the imperial and provisional governments of Russia and by Russian firms whose property has been nationalised, before any undertaking has been undertaken to benefit the British creditors of Russia; and whether he can now make any statement with reference to the negotiations?

Mr. B. SMITH: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now say if Mr. Martin's claim has been considered; and whether, in view of the suffering which Mr. Martin, now blind as the result of his imprisonment in Russia, has had to endure and his present afflictions, which make it difficult for him to earn his livelihood and impossible to support his family, he will endeavour to make a definite statement, before the adjournment for the Summer Recess, regarding the settlement of this class of claims?

Mr. LUMLEY: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether arrangements are being made with the Russian Government or with the Soviet delegation for payment of sums of money due to British firms for goods supplied to Russia before the War, which have been sequestrated by the Soviet State Bank?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Members to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on the 16th June, to the hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir P. Richardson) on the 23rd June, and to the hon. Member for Erdington (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) on the 30th June.

Viscount CURZON: Am I to understand from all those various answers that no new Commercial Treaty to supersede the Trade Agreement has been come to?

The PRIME MINISTER: No; it really means that the statement will have to be made altogether, and not in parts.

BRITISH TRAWLERS (COMPENSATION PAYMENTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 85.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received the £30,103 paid by the Russian Government as compensation for the arrest of the British trawlers on the Murmansk coast; what proportion of this money is to go to the dependants of the fishermen who lost their lives; how many dependants are there to be compensated; and when the money will be distributed?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE and FISHERIES (Mr. Buxton): With reference to the first part of the question, the money is understood to be in course of transmission from the British Agent in Moscow. The amount agreed to on account of the dependants is £5,516. The number of dependants is now 36, one having died since the loss of the vessel. As so many of the dependants are infants, it is not proposed to distribute the money in lump sums, but to expend it in providing for and continuing the weekly allowances which have, ever since the loss of the vessel, been paid to the adult dependants.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SPECIAL SERVICE SQUADRON (MARCH THROUGH LONDON).

Viscount CURZON: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether, on the return of the special service squadron from their world cruise, a march of the officers and men through London can take place on the same lines as those which have taken place through the great cities of the Dominions, in order to give the people of London the best possible opportunity of seeing the men and welcoming them on their return?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I have been asked to reply. It is not proposed to adopt the suggestion.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How is it that London is to be the only capital city in the Empire that is not to have this march?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Will the Board of Admiralty consider how very acceptable this would be to the people of London, who have not the opportunity of seeing the sailors that we have?

Mr. AMMON: The whole of these points had been considered before the reply was given, but, apart from the question of the expense, the Board of Admiralty consider that the sending of a body of men to London would interfere with their leave and with refitting the ships.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would it cost more than the "Enchantress" costs?

Earl WINTERTON: If it should prove that there is a general desire on all sides of the House and in the country generally for this march, would the hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?

Mr. AMMON: I should be bound to reconsider any general expression of opinion.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is there any reason beyond the expense?

OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Viscount CURZON: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the suffering inflicted upon officers of the Royal Navy and their families owing to no decision having so far been reached upon the question of the grant of an allowance in respect of marriage, such as is granted to officers and men of the other Services and to the lower deck, aggravated as it is in the ease of the naval officer by the conditions of his service; and whether he can at once take steps to secure a decision on this question at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. AMMON: I have been asked to reply. I regret I have nothing to add to my reply of the 16th July to the Noble Lord and to the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor).

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he has now given is one which will inevitably entail quite a number of naval officers having to run heavily into debt, and does he think that that is desirable in the interests of the Service?

Mr. AMMON: I cannot see how that would happen.

Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Gentleman go further into this, and he will soon find out?

TONNAGE REPLACEMENT.

Mr. LAMBERT: 36.
asked the Prime Minister the particulars concerning the replacement of British tonnage communicated to Paris, Tokio, Rome, and Washington, as required by the Washington Treaty?

Mr. AMMON: I have been asked to reply. As the answer is rather long, I will, with the right hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

The names of the British capital ships to be replaced by the two new ships, constituting the replacement tonnage, are:

"Thunderer."
"King George V."
"Ajax."
"Centurion."
The date of Governmental authorisation of replacement tonnage was 11th December, 1922. The keels of both the new capital ships were laid down on 28th December, 1922. The standard displacement, in tons and metric tons, of each new ship and the principal dimensions are as follows:


Standard displacement
35,000 tons.*


Length at waterline
702 feet.


Extreme beam
106 feet.


Mean draught at standard displacement
30 feet.


* 35,560 metric tons.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH GOVERNMENT LEASES).

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the information given on Wednesday last to the hon. Member for the Farnham Division of Surrey (Mr. A. M. Samuel), and also in view of the fact that such information has been telegraphed to China on the subject of the renewal of the leases in various specified cities of China, he will suspend any further action in respect of
such renewals until a reply by telegram, giving the views of the British thus affected on the information thus given, has been received from the Far East?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jewett): The renewal of the Crown leases in the known concessions has already received full consideration by the Government in the light of representations, both written and oral, made by representatives of the lot-holders concerned. A decision on the matter has already been delayed for a very lengthy period, and, in the circumstances, I regret that I am not prepared any longer to suspend action ill respect of the renewal of the leases.

Mr. MITCHELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation of those interested in this subject?

Mr. JOWETT: As I have already stated, I am asked to convert 99 years' leases into perpetual leases without proper financial consideration, the effect of which would be to make a free gift of not less than £40,000 a year to the lot-holders. I regret that I can hold out no hope of being able to agree to such a thing.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a conflict of opinion on this point, and that some of us think that he has been misinformed, and will he allow a Member from each of the three parties to confer with him and to look into this matter?

Mr. JOWETT: I have read the whole of the papers. I am quite satisfied, and I do not think I can alter my decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS.

Sir K. WOOD: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will ascertain if the Departmental Committee which is about to inquire into the facts recently disclosed in the Law Court of the payment by one Government contractor to another for the purpose of preventing competition in regard to certain Government contracts will expedite the inquiry; and whether the evidence given will be published and as to the other Government contracts as to which also inquiry is to be made?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): Since my answer of the 14th July, the Committee have sat on two days to hear evidence on this matter, and will be meeting again on Wednesday and Thursday next. The question whether this and other evidence taken by the Committee shall be published will be considered when they make their Report.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very urgent that this matter should be dealt with at once?

Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, yes; I quite agree, and no time is being lost.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

RETAIL SALE.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to bring any legislative proposals before the House concerning the sale of retail coal or matters relating thereto?

The PRIME MINISTER: This question is receiving the consideration of my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines, who has already supplied the House with such information as can at present be given, and will bring his proposals before it in due course.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Secretary for Mines has been very busy asking a large number of questions in this matter, and is nothing at all going to happen as a result?

The PRIME MINISTER: The distinguishing quality of this Government, so well represented by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines, is that before it produces its plans it asks questions to get at the root of the matter.

LOANEND COLLIERY, BLANTYRE (DISPUTE).

Sir K. WOOD: 90.
asked the Minister of Labour the present position of the strike at Loanend Colliery, Blantyre, and the matters that have brought about this dispute; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter, such as the institution of a court of inquiry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Alexander): I have been asked to
reply. I understand the colliery is still idle. My hon. Friend informed the hon. Member on 18th June of the reasons for the stoppage. There is provision in the rules of the Trades Union Congress for dealing with disputes of this character, and I do not think it necessary to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to set up a court of inquiry.

Sir K. WOOD: Have any steps been taken with the miners' union in relation to this matter?

Viscount CURZON: It the Trade Union Congress an official body under the Government?

Mr. ALEXANDER: No, but it is a very effective body for dealing with these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — EIGHT-HOURS' DAY CONVENTION.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: 33.
asked the, Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statements of the German Government and employers' delegates at the International Labour Conference in Geneva last month regarding the necessity of prolonging the hours of work in industry in Germany to meet the requirements of the Experts' Report; and whether the British government will urge the Allied negotiators to use all possible influence to secure a simultaneous ratification of the Eight-hours' Day Convention by France, Germany, and Great Britain?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, I am doubtful whether the Noble Lord's suggestion, if adopted, would have the effect of expediting the early ratification of the Convention which His Majesty's Government desire.

Captain BENN: Dees the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement that the execution of the Report does involve the prolongation of the working hours in Germany?

The PRIME MINISTER: Quite the contrary. I believe that it is purely fictitious that that would be the result of putting the Report into operation. I have gone very carefully into that matter personally.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-IRAQ TREATY.

Mr. LAMBERT: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether the ratification by the Iraq Assembly of the Anglo-Iraq Treaty, subject to the rider attached that the Treaty should be null and void if the British Government failed to safeguard the rights of Iraq in the Mosul vilayet, is accepted by the Government as full ratification; and if it is intended to accept the responsibility suggested by the condition attached by the Iraq Assembly?

Mr. THOMAS: I have been asked to reply to this question. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be misinformed as to the facts. There has never teen any question of ratification by the Constituent Assembly. Under Article 18 of the Treaty, their acceptance was made a condition precedent of ratification by the High Contracting Parties. This condition has now been fulfilled; and King Feisal has intimated his willingness to ratify as soon as this country is in a position to do so. The rider cannot affect the validity of the Treaty when once it has been ratified; nor do we regard it as imposing any responsibility on His Majesty's Government.

Mr. LAMBERT: Do I understand that His Majesty's Government accept responsibility for the defence of the Mosul vilayet against any possible enemy?

Mr. THOMAS: That is not implied in my answer. If my right hon. Friend will put that question down separately, I will give him an answer.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the first answer, do we understand that the King of Iraq will ratify the Treaty but not the rider, and that the document which will reach us will not contain the rider?

Mr. THOMAS: I cannot say what the document, when it reaches us, will contain. I am only dealing with the position of His Majesty's Government.

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the Constituent Assembly has assented to the Treaty despite this rider, which renders it nugatory?

Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that this condition imposes no fresh responsibility on His Majesty's Government?

Mr. THOMAS: No; I have already answered it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-RANKER OFFICERS.

Mr. J. HARRIS: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a petition, largely signed by hon. Members of this House, praying for an opportunity to discuss the Report on the case of the ex-ranker officers; and whether he proposes to provide such opportunity?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. When this question was debated, the House accepted the Government's suggestion that it should be investigated by an impartial and independent Committee. That Committee, after full consideration, reported against the claims put forward, and the Report has been accepted by the Government.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Has the right hon. Gentleman given consideration to the fact that when he made the suggestion that it should go to a Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did concur in that, and said that, if the decision were against these men, at any rate the House would have an opportunity of considering that decision? Has the Prime Minister given consideration to that?

Mr. HARRIS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether it is not also true that there was a larger acceptance by this House of the Committee because of that consideration?

The PRIME MINISTER: I confess I have no recollection of the statement, but if this matter is going to be kept open after investigation, then I do not know where the end is going to be.

Mr. HOGGE: Has the Report convinced the right hon. Gentleman that he was wrong when he gave his pledge in favour of the ex-ranker officers?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Report has convinced me that the statement of facts I had before me at the time was not a true statement.

Major HORE-BELISHA: What steps have the Government taken with regard
to carrying out the recommendations of the Committee as to finding work for these ex-ranker officers?

The PRIME MINISTER: That question had better be put down.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that much concern is being expressed at the terms of the Southborough Committee Report, in which no recommendations are made in regard to disabled ex-service men or messengers; and whether, before the Report of the Committee is adopted, the House will have an opportunity of debating it?

Mr. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply that I gave on the 24th June to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. de Frece), from which he will see that the Government have already decided to adopt the recommendations contained in the final report of the Southborough Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Has the hon. Gentleman received reports expressing concern, and is he satisfied that the Southborough Committee is strictly impartial? If he is not so satisfied, will he put in force some steps which will enable this House to decide on this Report?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, we have received many representations, but I have no hesitation in saying that, taking the situation as a whole, the only possible course was to adopt the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how a Government, of which he is a Member—and he, among others, is pledged to promotion without examination—can adopt a Report which only provides some 5,000 places by examination?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's description of my views.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is this not another case where the Prime Minister had not the facts before him when he gave this pledge?

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is alleged that one of the Members of that Committee was violently partisan?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. Such a suggestion ought not to be made in a supplementary question.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that by the promotion of these temporary men very great hardship has been caused to men who served in the War, who subsequently passed high examination, are still awaiting appointments in vain, and have been kept from appointments by the promotion of these temporary men?

Mr. SPEAKER: We really cannot now discuss that.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Are any of these temporary ex-service civil servants still being dismissed?

Mr. GRAHAM: I should think if the work of the Department came to an end, additional men may be dismissed, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, by the policy we adopted some time ago, we prevented the dismissal of very large numbers.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question discussed by the Southborough Committee was very much between those persons I have referred to and the temporary men? I think I am entitled to have an answer with regard to the harm done.

Mr. SPEAKER: It would take too much time now to discuss that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND FACTORY LAWS.

Mr. HOGGE: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he Is aware that there is no law in Mauritius providing for compensation to workmen meeting with accidents; that there is no law regulating the employment of women and children in the factories and plantations; and whether he can tale any steps to initiate reforms, in these matters in accordance with the expressed wishes of the inhabitants?

Mr. THOMAS: As far as I am aware there are no laws in Mauritius dealing with these questions. I have received no formal representations from the Colony in favour of such legislation, but I will make inquiries about the matter from the Governor.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. HOGGE: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any representations from the people of Mauritius regarding a change in the constitution of their legislative council; and, if so, whether he can say what is being done to meet these representations?

Mr. THOMAS: I am aware that the question of the revision of the Constitution of Mauritius has been freely discussed in the Colony in recent years, but I have received no formal representations on the subject.

GOVERNOR (TERMS OF OFFICE).

Mr. HOGGE: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the unanimous vote of the Legislative Council of Mauritius in favour of an extension of the term of service as Governor of Sir Hesketh Bell, K.C.M.G.; and whether he proposes to accede to this request?

Mr. THOMAS: I have received a copy of the resolution adopted by the Council of Government on this subject. Sir Hesketh Bell's term of office, which normally expired in 1922, was extended for a further period of 18 months expiring in September next. I regret that I do not see my way to recommend that his term of office should be further extended.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. AYLES: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, before he makes any agreement with Dominion Governments with regard to emigration, he will first make inquiries as to the rates of wages, hours and conditions of labour obtaining, and supply the information to intending emigrants and Members of the House of Commons?

Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. Before agreements are entered into
careful inquiries are made concerning the conditions which await new settlers. My hon. Friend will find somewhat detailed information as to rates of wages, hours and conditions of labour overseas in the Handbook of the Oversea Settlement Department of the Colonial Office, copies of which I am sending to him. These hand-books are distributed gratis to inquirers and are available to Members of this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — MRS. STAN HARDING.

Mr. STRANGER: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mrs. Stan Harding, a British subject, was condemned to death by the Soviet authorities in 1920 in consequence of the United States secret service agent, Mrs. Marguerite Harrison, falsely den mincing her as a spy; and whether he has taken any, and what, steps to obtain from the United Skates Government recompense for the injury to health and suffering caused to Mrs. Harding in consequence?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government and their predecessors in office have given most careful and repeated consideration to all the circumstances of Mrs. Stan Harding's case: they have obtained £3,000 compensation for her from the Soviet Government; they have, as far as lies in their power, completely cleared her from the accusation of being a spy; but they are not prepared to make representations to the United States Government in order to assist her in what is essentially a personal dispute with another lady.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Would it be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to refuse this woman, Mrs. Marguerite Harrison, entry into this country, in view of the statement made by the Russian Government to the British Government in May, 1923, which described her as a Soviet informer; and in view of the information laid by her leading to many arrests, could not the right hon. Gentleman keep her out of this country altogether?

Viscount CURZON: Did not the right hon. Gentleman at the last Election give a pledge that he would see that justice was done to Mrs. Stan Harding?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, and my reply is that justice has been done.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish everyone could get as much justice as she.

Mr. DICKSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman not got information, and is it not the case, that Mrs. Marguerite Harrison was working deliberately under the American Government, and is it not thus a Governmental matter, and not a personal matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, it is not. We cannot interfere with other Governments in this respect.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gen-man convinced that this lady, Mrs. Harrison, was not an agent of the American Government, because, of course, if she was such an agent of the Government, then it is not a dispute between two ladies?

Major HORE-BELISHA: Was not the pledge of the Prime Minister to the National Union of Journalists, that he would make representations to the American Government, and not to get Mrs. Stan Harding compensation from the Soviet Government, which is another matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have done everything possible to get justice for this lady, and I think the reply which I have given shows that this has been quite effective.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question, as to whether he did not pledge himself to make representations to the American Government; and does he now repudiate this pledge?

Mr. STRANGER: Is it not a fact, and is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, when he made a speech last November, £3,000 compensation had been paid by the Soviet authorities? What has he done since then?

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole situation is this: that this lady made certain complaints; they have been very carefully gone into, and that everything possible has been done to get her justice. Justice has been done.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman clone anything since his Government came into office?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: 43.
asked the Prime Minister when the Royal Commission on Local Government is expected to submit its Report?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): I have been asked to reply. I can add nothing to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) on the 15th May last.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (MUDIR MOHAMED BIN SALIM).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the grounds on which the services of Mudir Mohamed bin Salim, of Kenya Protectorate, have been dispensed with; and whether officers of a standing junior to Mohamed bin Salim have been retained in the service?

Mr. THOMAS: The appointment of the Mudir in question has been retrenched on the ground of economy, and a gratuity has been awarded. I am in communication with the Governor on the subject, and am at present unable to answer the latter part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST (TAKORADI HARBOUR).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any tenders were invited from private engineering firms for the construction of the Takoradi harbour works under the Stewart and MacDonnell scheme; and whether, in agreeing to adopt any recommendations made by Mr. Palmer, he will make it a condition that the Ronaldshay recommendations shall be followed, and tenders invited and compared with estimates of cost and time made departmentally or otherwise?

Mr. THOMAS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part, I have invited tenders from several firms of contractors for the completion of the harbour on the lines advised by Mr. Palmer.

Mr. J. HARRIS: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in coming to a decision upon the Takoradi Harbour works, he will endeavour to secure, as essential to the adoption of any new scheme, a low-water depth of not less than 20 feet, a pier capacity which would include a daily handling of 3,000 tons of manganese, a cocoa storage of 50,000 tons, a coal storage of 5,000 tons, adequate provision for log-rolling and storage, and a total all-in cost of not more than £3,000,000, including the losses entailed under the Stewart and MacDonnell scheme?

Mr. THOMAS: Mr. Palmer's proposals for the harbour works which I have accepted provide, at an estimated total cost of £2,500,000, for berths for three vessels, one with a low-water depth of 30 feet and two with depths of 25 feet or over. It is expected that 10,000 ton cargoes of manganese will be loaded in three or four days. There will be adequate provision for storage, but I cannot give exact figures.

Mr. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the £2,500,000 is in addition to the £1,600,000, or does it include the whole or part of that?

Mr. THOMAS: It includes the total, but it is only fair to say that this is an estimate, and I have invited tenders based on that estimate.

Sir F. WISE: Is all that paid by the Colonies?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA (FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how long, as the result of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Jamaica, the live stock of farmers in the island have been kept in quarantine; whether he has received any evidence to show that the disease was introduced into the island by cattle which were imported and sold by Government agents; whether he is aware that this outbreak and the consequent period of quarantine has caused hardship and loss in the island; and whether he can now state what compensation the Government are proposing to grant to the victims of this outbreak?

Mr. THOMAS: Quarantine in the areas affected, which comprised three parishes and a portion of a fourth, was first declared in September, 1922, and, with the exception of a short interval towards the end of 1923, has been maintained, with modifications, since that date. The point raised in the second part of the question is dealt with in detail in the recent report of the local Commission, a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House. As regards the rest of the question, the outbreak has necessarily been attended by hardship and loss. The Colonial Government has had the question of compensation under consideration, but no definite proposals have yet reached me.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the outbreak has now entirely ceased?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not sure. I believe it has.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed that, in constituting the Imperial Economic Committee, separate special representatives shall be appointed for the Crown Colonies and Protectorates or whether membership of the Committee is limited to representatives of Great Britain, the self-governing Dominions, and India?

Mr. THOMAS: As I stated on 30th June in reply to the hon. Member for North Bristol, it is proposed that if the Committee is appointed, it should include two representatives of the Colonies and Protectorates.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the Colonial Secretary bear in mind, in selecting those two representatives, the adoption of the panel system similar to that which he adopted in connection with the Conference now sitting in London, because it is almost impossible to get two men to represent properly all the Crown Colonies?

Mr. THOMAS: If we are assured that the experiment made in connection with the Conference in London is the best procedure, certainly we are prepared to keep in mind our own suggestion, which has proved so valuable.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the value to British imports of the Preference granted by the various overseas parts of the Empire in 1923; what were the special lines of British exports so benefited; and, in the case of the six chief ones, to what extent in values of pounds sterling?

Mr. LUNN: With reference to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4th April, by my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to the hon. Member for South Croydon. I regret that, owing to the differences in the details of the Dominion and Colonial tariffs, the particulars referred to in the latter part of the question could only be prepared with a. considerable expenditure of time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AND WEST AFRICA (DEVELOPMENT).

Sir W. de FRECE: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if, in view of the premature close of the work of the Committee which last year inquired into the potentialities of the development of East and West Africa, he proposes either to instruct the Commission which has just been appointed to add this inquiry to those functions laid upon it or to re-open the former Committee and instruct it to finish its work?

Mr. THOMAS: It is not the case that the work of the previous Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Ronald-shay was closed prematurely and I see no reason to re-open it. I am not yet in a position to announce the terms of reference to the East African Commission; they may include an inquiry into economic development, but probably not in the same form as in the case of the 1923 Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

Colonel GRETTON: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if the Wood-Renton Commission or any other Commission in Southern Ireland is empowered to award compensation in cases of claims against the British
Government for injuries or losses arising from the action of the armed forces of the British Crown; if he will state the total sum awarded in such cases and the total sum paid by the British Government; and can he state the total amount of the claims outstanding?

Mr. THOMAS: As the reply to this question is rather long, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel GRETTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give the information I asked for in the question, showing the claims made against the British Government?

Mr. THOMAS: I have included in the answer all the information at my disposal.

Following is the reply:

I would refer the hon. and gallant Members to the Memorandum on Compensation presented to Parliament in April, 1923 (Command 1844), where the matter is fully dealt with. The sums refunded to the present time by the British Government to the Free State Government under the arrangement described in paragraph (c) of the second Section of that Memorandum amount to £2,569,430, and further claims for the refund of £90,805 3s. 9d. are at present under examination. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative,

Colonel GRETTON: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if there has been any change, or if any change is contemplated, in the method of awarding compensation by the Wood-Renton Commission for damages for injuries and losses suffered by British subjects and others in Southern Ireland; and if he is aware that in many cases the awards have been quite inadequate for the loss sustained?

Mr. THOMAS: In reply to the first part of the question, I am not aware that the Wood-Renton Commission have made or contemplate any such change. In reply to the second part, I have no reason to suppose that the awards of the Commission do not provide fair and reasonable compensation within the limits imposed by the Terms of Reference.

Colonel GRETTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman examined for himself these claims and the awards made against such claims, and is he aware that in many cases the awards are absolutely grotesque, and that in claims amounting to several thousand pounds the awards have been £60, £70, or perhaps £100?

Mr. MILLS: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us if adequate consideration will be given to that particular claim made for the destruction of an autograph letter of the late Kasier?

Mr. THOMAS: It is difficult to give an answer, because it implies that I am as competent to judge a matter on which I have not. as full evidence as the Commission set up, who have at their disposal all the material information. This body was set up by the late Government, and I am sure they satisfied themselves as to the wisdom of appointing this body, and the impartiality of the individuals composing it, and I am not going to question their judgment or impartiality.

Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to do anything in the matter?

ATTACK ON BRITISH SOLDIERS (QUEENSTOWN).

Colonel GRETTON: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can make any further statement in the case of the murderous attacks made upon British officers and soldiers at Queenstown?

Mr. THOMAS: I regret that I have no further statement to make on this matter, except that I am glad to hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that all the victims are progressing satisfactorily. Five have been discharged from hospital.

Colonel GRETTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that one unfortunate man was killed, and that the damage was done by persons firing out of a Rolls-Royce car, and does he know how many Rolls-Royce cars there are in Ireland? I am told that there are only five.

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. and gallant Friend is a better judge of Rolls-Royce cars than I am. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby?

Mr. THOMAS: That is perfectly true, but, all the people to whom I advertise these cars do not buy them.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE PAGEANT.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 82.
asked the o Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has succeeded in getting together the personnel required, both men and women, for the forthcoming Empire Pageant?

Mr. LUNN: I am glad to say that the response to our appeal for voluntary performers for the Pageant of Empire has been most satisfactory. Nearly 15,000 have already enrolled their names, but there is still room for more male voluntary performers, and it is not too late for them to come forward. I may, perhaps, add that the first regular performance of the Pageant will take place next Friday. This postponement is due solely to delays caused by the extension of the Rodeo for a third week, and by the bad weather of the last three or four days. In the meantime, the dress rehearsals, extending from this evening to Thursday, will be open to the public free of charge. Accommodation will be reserved for those holding the complimentary tickets which have already been issued.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: How many more men does the hon. Gentleman require?

Mr. LUNN: I should like all to come forward who can give the necessary time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORDNANCE MAPS.

Sir H. CRAIK: 83.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it has been decided that the six-inch maps of the Ordnance Survey are to be issued in the form of full sheets; and whether, in view of the serious curtailment thus entailed of the usefulness of these maps in geographical and topographical work, and in many departments of science and administration, he will reconsider this decision?

Mr. BUXTON: It was decided some time ago, on grounds of economy, to
publish the six-inch maps in full sheets. In view of the protests received from scientific bodies and others, the question is being reconsidered.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is such a question decided solely by the officials of the Stationery Office, or does any Minister expressly consider such proposals?

Mr. BUXTON: It is in consultation with my Department.

Sir H. CRAIK: But is the right hon. Gentleman's approval asked?

Mr. BUXTON: If the proposal is justified on grounds of expense, it will be carried out.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not proper that questions of this sort should not be left to an official who is subject to no real Ministerial control?

Mr. LEIF JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether, instead of ceasing to produce these smaller maps, he will raise their price, inasmuch as they are very valuable to a number of people who would willingly pay more rather than be without them?

Mr. BUXTON: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FARMERS (INSOLVENCIES).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 84.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give figures showing the number of insolvencies among farmers for each year since 1922?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I have been asked to reply. The failures of farmers under the Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangement Acts in 1922, 1923 and the first half of 1924 were, respectively, 403, 472 and 213.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Did any of these bankruptcies arise out of the competition of the Co-operative Wholesale Society?

Mr. BROAD: Are there not such causes as personal extravagance?

Mr. W. THORNE: Were any of the failures due to high rent charged by the landlord?

ASSISTANT MYCOLOGIST, HARPENDEN.

Major CHURCH: 86.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that an advertisement has appeared in the Press for an assistant mycologist in the Ministry of Agriculture's pathological laboratory at Harpenden, inviting applications from men and women; that the salary scale attached to the post if the successful application were a man would be £250 to £400 plus Civil Service bonus, but if a woman were successful the salary scale would be £200 to £300 plus Civil Service bonus; and whether this differentiation in pay between men and women possessing the same professional qualification and standing is a recognised practice of his Department?

Mr. BUXTON: It is the recognised rule of the Civil Service to differentiate in the pay of men and women. In this connection, I should refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on the 3rd instant by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question by the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) as to women's salaries.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is there any differentiation between Members of the Ministry according to whether they are women or men?

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: Is it not the policy of the Government to give equal pay for equal qualifications and equal work?

Mr. BUXTON: The scales of salaries are determined by the Treasury.

LABOUR SHORTAGE.

Sir W. de FRECE: 87.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any representations have reached him showing a shortage of labour in any branch of land cultivation; and what steps have in that case been taken to meet it?

Mr. BUXTON: I understand that in certain parts of the country a shortage has been experienced of casual labour for seasonal operations, and in many areas there seems to be a growing shortage of skilled regular workers. The only effective remedy appears to lie in more attractive wages and conditions, which I hope to secure by a system of regulation.

Sir W. de FRECE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the shortage of labour in the fruit-picking industry?

Mr. BUXTON: I understand that there is a shortage. I have had a request from one farmer to be permitted to import labour from France, and from another farmer to be allowed to make arrangements with the education authorities to get boy labour.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Can the Deputy-Leader of the House say, in the event of the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister being carried, how far is it proposed to go with the business on the Paper?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): We ask for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule only to make sure of completing the Committee stage of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill. In the event of that stage being finished by nine or 10 o'clock, we shall proceed with the Old Age Pensions Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May we take it that in the event of the Housing Bill not being completed till after 11 or 12 o'clock, having regard to the number of Amendments and new Clauses, there will be no further business taken beyond that?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I ask whether no other business except the Old Age Pensions Bill will be taken?

Mr. CLYNES: If there is objection to the further Orders we will not proceed with them, but there is still quite a number of smaller and less contentious items which we should like to clear off the Paper.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Clynes.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Parkinson were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Alden to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Government of India (Leave of Absence) Bill) [Lords].

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Kingston - upon - Hull Corporation Bill,

Southern Railway Bill,

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

Manchester Ship Canal Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to the guardianship and marriage of infants." [Guardianship of Infants Bill [Lords].

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to promote the adoption of co-partnership by statutory and other companies." [Companies Amendment (Co-partnership) Bill [Lords.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 17th July.]

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Termination, of Government liability to make contribution.)

Mr. E. SIMON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, after the word "contributions," to insert the words
or contributions of smaller amount or for a shorter period.
Under this Clause, if the treaty with the building trade is not carried out properly by the building trade, that is to say, if the necessary number of houses are not produced, or, in other words, if the augmentation of labour is not forthcoming, and under certain other conditions, the Minister has power to make an Order declaring that no contributions shall be made by the Minister in respect of any houses which have not been completed—any houses, whether subject to special conditions or not—and so far as I understand the wording, it means that if in 1927 the building trade do not produce the necessary labour the Minister may make an Order. He may not reduce the contribution. The only power he has is to cut the contribution clean off, that is to say, to remove all subsidies from houses and to stop subsidised housing. That would stop all housing for the working classes absolutely dead. I do not think that can be the intention under the Clause. Local authorities and others have been building 80,000 to 100,000 houses a year during the last two or three years.
This Bill proposes to increase the number from 100,000 to 200,000, and the treaty with labour is to get the necessary labour to complete 200,000 instead of 100,000 houses. If, for any reason, that understanding breaks down, it is most unfair to those who are waiting for houses that the Minister should only have the power to say, "We will absolutely stop all housing." Surely he ought to have power, if he wishes, at that date, when it is hard to say what the conditions may
be, to say: "We will reduce the contribution. If you like we will go back to the contribution under the 1923 Act." Many local authorities did not ask for any increase of subsidy. They have been perfectly content to go on building under the 1923 Act. The right hon. Gentleman comes along, doubles the subsidy under certain conditions, leaves the same subsidy under other conditions, and says, "In return for that I want a larger amount of labour." If he has made the treaty in an unsatisfactory way, as some of us think he has done, and if he fails to get the labour, he does not say, "We will go back to the Act." He does not leave himself the power to go back to the Act. He says: "We will cut the whole thing off. We will stop housing," and the local authorities will get nothing whatever. It seems to me that can hardly be the intention. If I have understood it rightly, it cannot be desirable to leave the Minister at that date—it may not be the right hon. Gentleman—and not to give him the power to cut down the contribution and go back, if he wishes, to the contribution under the 1923 Act, under which a certain number of houses are being built and would undoubtedly continue to be built. The Amendment leaves the Minister the full power to cut it off if he wishes to do so, but it also gives him power, if he wishes, to go back to the 1923 Act or to give any other smaller subsidy.

4.0 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): If this Amendment were accepted, it would visit the sins of the industry on the local authority, and I am sure that is not the intention of the Mover. But may I remind the hon. Member that all he seeks is really contained in the Clause, because, in making the Order, the Minister, and afterwards Parliament, would have power to vary the contributions as they thought right and proper in the light of existing circumstances. If that be his object, I can assure him that it is covered by the Clause as it stands.

Mr. SIMON: I cannot see how power is given by Clause 4 to vary the contributions. Power is given by Clause 5 to vary contributions.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes, it is given by Clause 5.

Mr. SIMON: It would be interesting to know whether there is power to vary the contributions, even although prices have not increased and conditions changed. Can you, under Clause 5, cut down the contributions, simply because you are not getting a sufficiently large number of houses?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I think we should not, at any rate, alter Clause 4 in this sense for this reason: We make it quite clear to the building industry that we do not compromise with them, and that there will be no saying to them, "If you do not deliver all the houses, we may treat you less kindly." Let us have a firm understanding. We will supply the money to the extent promised here if they deliver the goods, but on no other condition.

Mr. SIMON: Then it is not the case that it can be varied? The intention quite definitely is that if they will not provide the labour they will not get the contribution.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes.

Mr. P. HARRIS: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) will not press the Amendment. The one thing in which the local authorities are interested is certainty. One of the troubles in the past has been that when we have worked out our plans the Government. Departments have tried to change their attitude and their terms. One of the great attractions of this Bill is that it does seem to foreshadow a long programme over a long period of years and a certainty in the amount of contributions the Minister is going to guarantee to the local authorities, and I think it would be fatal to put into his hands the power to reduce the contributions under certain conditions. By all means, if certain contingencies arise, stop the grant altogether, but do not give the Minister the opportunity to reduce it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir GEORGE McCRAE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, after the word "houses" to insert the words
in the absence of adequate arrangements for the necessary increase in the supply of labour and materials at reasonable prices or.
There is no reference whatever in the Bill to the augmentation in the supply of labour or materials. The Committee will
recollect that when we were discussing the Financial Resolution I proposed similar words, and they were embodied in that Resolution. I think it is of vital importance that these words should also be embodied in the Act of Parliament. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the difficulty with which he is faced is the shortage in the supply of labour, and, until he faces that difficulty boldly, which I do not think he has done up to now, no additional houses will be built than would have been built under the Act of 1923. That is a very serious position, because, if there be not a sufficient supply of labour, it means that there will be no additional houses and that he will not be able to reduce the rents as he contemplates. Our experience of the past has clearly shown that, if there be not an available supply of labour for the necessary houses, it simply means that the increased subsidy will go in an increased cost of building. We had an experience of that under the 1919 Act, and I thought that we were going to avoid the mistakes that we then made. Not only will the cost of the houses built be increased, but it will send up the cost of all building other than house building. Commercial building will go up in sympathy, and that increased cost will be a great handicap to trade. We all hope that there will be some increase in our prosperity so far as trade is concerned, and that will still further handicap the supply of labour for house building.
No additional houses will be built under this Act unless the supply of labour is augmented. A study of the figures will show that very clearly. Under the Act of 1923 there were 133,500 houses in England and 10,000 houses in Scotland approved by the Ministry of Health and the Secretary for Scotland respectively. There were 143,500 houses, and the number built and building was roughly 49,000. If you deduct that from 143,500, it means that there are still 94,500 houses which were approved of and which would have been required to be built had this Bill not been introduced. I am not saying that by way of criticism. I am merely stating a fact. Anyone who knows the difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman is confronted will feel that no criticism, unless helpful, should be made of his proposals. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do with regard to the additional supply of labour? A mere substitution
of houses under his Bill for the houses that would have been built under the 1923 Act will not help the houseless and homeless. We must have more labour. What does the right hon. Gentleman offer? An apprenticeship scheme, which, even supposing it be successful, will not begin to operate for three or four years. I do not think the apprenticeship scheme will at all help the building scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. We want a greater augmentation of labour, and I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman how far in his negotiations with the building trade he got any pledge or undertaking from it with regard to those men who were being already employed in the building trade, but who were not bricklayers. In the House Building Committee's Report it is stated that
Special consideration shall, however, be given to applicants who have had previous experience of the trade (e.g., building trade labourer).
I wish to ask the Minister specifically: Has he received any estimate from the building trade as to the numbers expected, to be got from this source? Has he received any definite assurance on that head, because I am quite sure he realises, as we all realise, that the apprenticeship scheme is not doing to meet the difficulty with which he is faced?
We then come to the question of the supply of materials. There, also, we find great difficulties facing us. I was in my constituency the other day, and there we have the home of the light castings industry. I was assured that there would be plenty of material there for the schemes that are at present under consideration, but, if that be so with regard to those ironware and light casting materials which are made in Falkirk, it is not so with regard to other materials, because the House Building Committee's Report has this very significant sentence:
The Committee is of opinion that the supply of materials available at the present time do not indicate any considerable amount of reserves. It is also felt that this position tends to cause a rise in prices. As regards certain materials, particularly in the case of bricks and slates, it is probable that there is an actual shortage in these at the moment in some districts. The fact that there is at the present time a pressing demand for similar materials for building work other than housing must, it was felt, considerably affect the market as regards the prices of materials required in connection with housing schemes.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has another Bill before the House to deal with profiteering, but, after a very close experience of this housing question, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that no Bill that the right hon. Gentleman can bring in, if there be a scarcity of labour, will prevent prices rising. I think he must realise that is so. The consequence will be that with all the good will in the world and with all the desire on the part of the trade to co-operate in the supply of houses, the right hon. Gentleman will find that prices will soar, as they soared in 1920 and 1921. I should like to press on the right hon. Gentleman that at least he ought to accept these words and put them in the Bill to show that we contemplate a sufficient supply of labour and materials in abundance at reasonable prices. This is not a Housing Bill. So long as we have the present conditions with regard to labour, this Bill is only what it states, namely, a Financial Provisions Bill to increase the amount of the subsidy, and, as I have pointed out, a mere increase in the subsidy will not give us more houses. It will only increase the cost of those that are to be built.
It has been said in the discussions of this Committee that the 15 years' programme is not in the nature of a guarantee. I look upon the 15 years' programme as very much in the nature of a guarantee. I think we ought to have a long term programme. I have advocated it, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is right in looking ahead. I look upon this guarantee by the State as a very serious obligation, but, if the State is giving this guarantee, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman: What are we getting in return? We are getting an apprenticeship scheme which will not solve the difficulty at least for years, and we are getting an expression of good will. I do not hesitate to say that that is not a square deal for the State. We ought to have something in return and that agreement ought to be put in the Bill with regard both to labour and materials. In fact, there ought to have been an agreement in the Schedule to the Bill as to the provision of both labour and material in return for the guarantee which the State is giving. The fact of the matter is this. I realise the difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman has been confronted. Still, we cannot get away from
this, that he has absolutely failed to get the means whereby these additional houses are to be provided. It is as well we should face that fact and, until the question is boldly faced by the Minister, no additional houses will be built for the next two years at least, and we shall simply be going on with the houses already authorised. Seeing that we have no guarantee which can be attached to the Bill, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, at least, accept the words of my proposition, which will give him power to negotiate with the trade and will do something to make his scheme workable. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not feel I have been too critical, because in all these discussions anything I have done has been in an endeavour to strengthen his hands in overcoming a most difficult question.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: On a point of Order. The words of the Amendment make neither sense nor grammar. Will the hon. Member say in which part of the Bill, or rather of the Clause, he intends to insert these words.

Sir G. McCRAE: I hoped that the insertion of these words would be quite intelligible to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he will read the Clause carefully he will see that they are quite clear. The Sub-section, as amended. would read:
Subject as hereinafter provided, the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health may jointly make an order under this Section declaring that no contributions shall be made by the Minister or Board in respect of any houses in the absence of adequate arrangements for the necessary increase in the supply of labour and materials at reasonable prices, or which have not been completed before the date specified in the order.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The question which has been raised by my hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment is one of the most important to be considered in connection with the Bill. His object is one with which I and none of us will quarrel, nor do I feel disposed to question any statements the hon. Gentleman made and particularly those in Which he emphasised the fact that we had not got an adequate supply of men and material in order to insure the desired number of houses. As far as I am concerned, it is for us to see that we do not magnify the means into greater importance than the end. The end is the production of houses and it is
the end we should have in view. I submit we ought to avoid anything which may cripple or handicap or prove an obstacle to the attainment of that end. I want to deal with two or three other Amendments affecting this question which are on the Order Paper while discussing this particular Amendment, and I hope we may be granted the latitude you, Sir, have given us on other occasions, so that we may be able to cover the field here and arrive at sonic agreement that will facilitate the passage of the Clause with which we are dealing.
The capacity to produce houses depends on more than one factor. It depends, first, on the labour and material supply and it also depends on something else. Taking the personnel of the industry, the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Sir G. McCrae) has appealed to me to say where I expect to get the labour from. There is, first of all, the provision of apprentices, to which he has referred. He said, in regard to that, we could not expect to get much by way of return from those apprentices during the first three or four years. I am more optimistic than the hon. Member in regard to that. It will be remembered that, when I was replying on a former occasion to a suggestion that we should try to employ untrained labour, I stated that that would rather retard than expedite the production of houses. I am told that, in ordinary practice, the apprentice bricklayer learns very very little during his first 12 months of service. I intend to take steps, immediately the Bill goes through, to make the apprentice bricklayer a more effective bricklayer than he usually is, by the ordinary process of training. I intend to make an appeal, and I have already taken steps to do so, for the co-operation of the education authorities in this respect. What is in my mind is, that we ought to have the very best class of training for our apprentices, and we ought to have it given in a manner which will enable us to get an output from the apprentices in the shortest possible time. In some schemes in the country already the employer has granted facilities for apprentices to attend training centres during two half-days a week. That has had very satisfactory results, and I intend to introduce a scheme as far as possible to make that general. Such training would be given partly in the local technical schools but largely, I hope, without much
expenditure, on the actual job, where highly-skilled teachers will be on the spot where the apprentice goes to work, and they will train him as rapidly as possible in the craft for which he is intended. I have not had an opportunity of submitting this to the National Building Committee or to those who are likely to deal with it, but I have consulted the men's leaders and—this is a very important point—the leaders of the men have assured me that they will cheerfully co-operate with us in any such scheme. They say they have never had any objection to the proper training of apprentices. What they have objected to has been the deterioration of their craft by the introduction of untrained men. I have no doubt also that the employers will grant the necessary facilities for carrying on work of that kind and that that practical work can be supplemented either in the local technical schools or by evening classes.
I think it might be possible, and while I cannot speak without an opportunity of consultation, I am very hopeful that it may be possible that the apprentices who have received this special instruction will be passed by a test more rapidly into the industry than they would be if they had not had this practical assistance. The hon. Gentleman asked me if I had formed any estimate as to the number of bricklayers' labourers available and as to the facilities that will be provided for their passing into the position of fully fledged craftsmen. I have not been able to obtain any data which would justify me in presenting an estimate to the House, but here again I have, during the past few weeks, consulted with people who can be most helpful to us in this respect, and they assure me that where it can be shown that a man is capable of doing skilled work, without impeding the work of the other skilled workers, that man will have an opportunity to do so.
Then I think I might expect to get labour from other sources. There are skilled men who left the building industry owing to the lack of security of employment in days gone by, and who now, with the guarantee of continuous employment, might be attracted back to their original trade. I think we might expect something also, although perhaps not very much, from returned emigrants.
People do not want to leave their native land if they have a reasonable prospect of obtaining there something approaching the standard of living they can get in foreign countries. We have sent abroad tens of thousands of skilled men during recent years, I regret to say, but I am hopeful that from these men we may obtain a large number now that they are secured against unemployment.
The output of houses does not depend alone on the number of skilled men. You have to take methods of production into account in estimating the number of tradesmen you require. If you have a better organisation of the industry itself, an organisation that will allow capital to be used more effectively than it is to-day, that will allow labour to be used more effectively than it is to-day, then right at the outset, without any other improvement, we might get an increased output of houses for the same number of men. There is another thing I would mention, the available labour for house building will depend to some extent on the demand for commercial buildings, and if there should be a reduction in the demand for those buildings the number of men available for working class houses will be correspondingly increased. No section of the House desires it, but if there were a slump in commercial building, and we had all the labour we required for the building of working class houses, no one would say that in view of those conditions we should stereotype the number of apprentices we are to take into the trade.

Mr. SUNLIGHT: What about a boom in commercial building?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have no objection to a boom in commercial building, or in any other branch of the industry. So far as I can contribute to it I shall be very glad to do so. But in the view of those people who know the most important consideration is the probability of entirely new methods of construction and new material. I read in the newspaper the other day that the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) had been studying bricklaying and that he had been able to lay six bricks a minute. I have not had an opportunity of confirming that statement, but a little arithmetical exercise will enable the Committee to understand that if the right hon. Gentleman could maintain that
output for seven hours he would lay something like 2,500 to 3,000 bricks per day. I should not expect the right hon. Gentleman to do that, because he has not had the training and probably his fingers have been used for more delicate purposes, but if the right hon. Gentleman could lay six bricks a minute, a skilled man who was accustomed to the work ought to be able to maintain that speed for seven hours. That would mean that the number of bricks laid would be approximately 10 times the number of bricks which it is said a bricklayer lays to-day.
If new bricklaying methods can be discovered—and I am speaking quite seriously when I say that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that some new method may be discovered by which a bricklayer can do ten men's work at bricklaying—then, clearly, it would be unreasonable to say that we must recruit the bricklaying industry at the rate that we must recruit it if the present output were maintained. There are many other methods. I do not want to go into them in detail, but I will mention one or two. To-morrow morning I am to inspect a system of building houses largely by steel and timber, which is the product of one of our eminent business men. It is not some fantastic scheme devised by a dreamer, but one submitted by a man who has built up a great reputation in the business world. I have had submitted to me within the last few days, material for erecting houses by one of the best known business men in the country, which he claims would give us more substantial houses, more beautiful houses, houses in a tithe of the time that we now use in producing houses, and cheaper houses, without the service of either bricklayer or plasterer, and with very little service from some of the best known crafts. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was the material?"] It is not necessary to mention the material, but if the material can stand the scientific test, hon. Members may take it from me that it is a material that will be eminently satisfactory in the construction of houses. I have no technical and scientific knowledge to enable me to pass judgment on the value of the material, but taking it at its face value it seems quite possible that it should be successful and there is no reason why it should not succeed. If it does succeed then, quite clearly, the building industry
would still require to recruit its personnel, not by taking men into the bricklaying or the joinery and plastering side of the industry but by taking them into the manufacturing of this new material and the building by this new material. We must take all these things into account.
The hon. Member mentioned one point, and it is a point in which the building industry place great interest, and that is, the relation of labour and materials. When I go to the men and I say, "We want you rapidly to recruit your ranks," they invariably say to me, "We can only do it at the rate that you increase the output of materials." These two things must always tend to approximate, otherwise you have men unemployed for lack of materials, or you have the manufacturers of materials afraid that prices will fall because of over-production of the commodity on which they are engaged. Therefore, we have to try to balance the output of men and materials, and that is one of the main purposes for which our national building committees are being set up, and one of the things to which they must turn their thoughts right from the beginning of operations. Moreover, we have to balance the various crafts in the building industry. We may have too many plumbers and not sufficient bricklayers and, consequently, we may have plumbers idle and waiting for the bricklayers, or vice versa. We have to take these things as part of one settled scheme.
Therefore, I came to the conclusion, and I think hon. Members will agree with me, that the most hopeful way of getting these things carefully balanced was mainly by getting the industry itself to provide the proper machinery for doing the work, to give the industry the assistance which the local authorities and the education authorities can give them in carrying out the scheme, and to say to the industry, "You have to satisfy us that you are providing adequate materials and adequate men, and you have also to ensure to us an output of the number of houses stated in the programme which we have laid down." To meet this view, I have drafted an Amendment which I think I can reasonably ask the Committee to accept. In page 5, line 42, at the end, to insert:
whether the deficiency is due to the absence of adequate arrangements for the increase in the supply of building
labour (including any necessary augmentation of the number of apprentices employed) or for the necessary increase in the supply of materials at reasonable prices or from any other cause.
In a general way, without tying ourselves down to particular numbers, if we accept the basis of what we call the "treaty"—the agreement or the understanding with the building industry—that the output of houses is the primary consideration, I think these words cover all that is intended by the Amendment which has been moved. I hope the Committee will see its way to accept this alternative Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The suggested alternative Amendment does not seem to add anything to the Clause. The Clause says in Sub-section (2):
The Minister and Board may make an order under this Section in either of the following cases—
(a) if, in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, or in any third succeeding year, the Minister and Board are satisfied that the total number of houses which have been completed in the two years last preceding and in respect of which contributions are payable, is less than two-thirds of the number set opposite to those two years in the First Schedule to this Act.
The suggestion in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to add the provision, if the houses are not completed because there was not sufficient material or sufficient labour or for any other cause. That does not add one iota to the value of the power which the Minister has to stop contributions under the Act, nor does it provide any answer to the criticisms by the hon. Member in regard to the progress that the Minister has been making which would enable him to assure the Committee that there is a likelihood of there being a sufficiency of materials or a sufficiency of labour. The right hon. Gentleman's suggested Amendment says
including any necessary augmentation of the number of apprentices employed.
I do not understand this to mean that the proportion of apprentices, in the ratio of one apprentice to every three craftsmen, is to be altered. The Minister has made a careful and lengthy statement, but he gives the Committee no assurance that he is going to have a sufficiency of labour with which to build these houses. He is hopeful, and I am very glad that he is hopeful; but although
the Minister may be able to live on hope, I do not see how the Committee can live on hope. Hope is not going to build houses. We want something more than hope. He must build houses with labour and materials. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to my having laid six bricks a minute. That is true.

Mr. MONTAGUE: In what way were the bricks laid?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They were laid with mortar. I will explain. It is a new plan for laying bricks, and I understand that the Minister of Health has sent down an inspector on his behalf, as he was not able to go himself. Somebody wrote to me, and asked if I would go down, and see how non-expert ex-service men were laying bricks in the building of cottages. I went, and I saw the work in operation. It applies only to simple, straightforward bricklaying. You erect at the corner of each wall an angle with a groove in it; then a board or plank is slipped into the groove, and, instead of having all the trouble of plumbing to the wall—one often sees bricklayers from time to time plumbing, to see whether they are keeping straight—you put the brick against the wall, apply the mortar, and the brick plumbs itself automatically. It. may not be the highest form of bricklaying, I do not say it is; but I saw two cottages which had been built by this method, and two others in the course of erection, and I had the opportunity of laying a few bricks myself I do not profess to be a trade union bricklayer, but I say quite frankly that I saw ex-service men, who were not members of the Bricklayers' Union, and who were quite inexpert, laying bricks. I do not want to exaggerate—I was told they laid bricks at nearly 3,000 a day—but I will say that they were laying bricks at 2,000 a day. I am sure that the gentleman who invited me to go down will be delighted to show the new method to any Member of this House who likes to go and see it.
I do not say that that is going to solve the difficulty, but it may be one of the new methods which may prove successful. Then there is the proposal, mentioned by the Minister of Health, which has been made by a well-known business man who has a new scheme for building houses at a cost of something like £280 to £300 per
house. If the Minister is hopeful that these schemes are likely to be successful, either the one or the other, we do not need the enormous subsidy that is proposed in the Bill. He is giving these subsidies on the basis that we are going forward with the ordinary method of building houses.

Mr. WHEATLEY: indicated dissent.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It is clear that if there is going to be a new scheme which will enable an equally good house to be built for £280, the subsidy in this Bill will be absurd.

Mr. WHEATLEY: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I had all that in my mind when I arranged for a revision of the subsidy every three years.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman, according to his Schedule, is going to build so many houses, not at the end of three years, but each year. But we have not got any bricklayers practically to enable him to build anything like the number of houses set out in the Schedule. If he is going to apply this new scheme, then it would be foolish to have the proposed subsidy, which is equal to a capital value of £240, given in the case of houses which are only to cost £280. That would be ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman until this moment never suggested any other method of building except the ordinary building method. Until to-day we never heard that he was taking a part, or that the celebrated business man was doing so. His previous speeches indicated the ordinary method of building, with ordinary trade union labour.
We asked him over and over again where he was going to get the labour from and we have never been able to get any answer. To-day we hear that he is going to get the education authorities to give a training to apprentices. These houses are going to be built all over the country, and all over the country the apprentices will be building small cottage property. How is he going to arrange with the education authorities? Is he going to have a Vote put down on the Education Vote in this House to provide for the extra cost? I do not say that this is a bad plan. I think that it is a very
good plan, but we have had no details. We have been given no idea of the cost. The right hon. Gentleman may be very powerful, but he cannot utilise public money without a Vote of this House. This is the first time we have heard that the right hon. Gentleman is going to put, through his apprenticeship scheme.
There is to-day no building labour unemployed in this country. I asked the right hon. Gentleman some time ago, in regard to certain schemes of local authorities to build houses which have been approved by the Minister of Health, how they were going on, and how many builders were unemployed, and here is the answer. Hull, 984 houses sanctioned. Three hundred and forty-one have been commenced and 64 completed, and there are only eight unemployed bricklayers in Hull. In Norwich there are two houses completed out of 447, and not a single bricklayer unemployed, according to the right hon. Gentleman. In West Bromwich there are 17 completed out of 271 houses, and there is only one bricklayer available to get on with this work. In Workington, where I think I sanctioned 50 houses, not one has yet been commenced, and none can be commenced, because there is no labour available. Birmingham, we all know, is a standing example. The report of the town council states that they have scoured the whole countryside and a number of small towns and villages, and cannot get building labour to get on with the number of houses already authorised. The Birmingham Corporation can employ several hundred more men if they can get them. Now the right hon. Gentleman is going to increase the building programme. There are being built under the Chamberlain Act something like 60,000 houses in the course of a year.

Mr. WHEATLEY: indicated dissent.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The smaller the number the better the argument for my purpose. Will the right hon. Gentleman say 50,000 or 40,000? Let us say that 50,000 houses are being built every year under the Chamberlain Act. The result is that the whole building trade of the country is drained. There are no bricklayers, no plasterers, no slaters, available for those houses, to say nothing of the commercial building. The right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that commer-
cial building is to stop. All the available labour is at present absorbed. Has the right hon. Gentleman found out yet how much extra labour it would take to add 100,000 houses to the building programme each year, which is what the right hon. Gentleman expects to do? That would mean 20,000 more bricklayers, 7,000 more plasterers, and 1,700 more slaters. They do not exist. The right hon. Gentleman expresses the hope that he will get them. They do not exist in the country, but he suggests that some of them would like to come back from other trades.

Mr. SEXTON: So they will.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Why should they? The demand is there now.

Mr. SEXTON: They will get better money at their own trade.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The demand has been there for the last three months while the Chamberlain houses were being built. There is the demand for a greater number of extra bricklayers, plasterers and slaters, greater to-day than it has been for the last six months, when the Chamberlain houses began to he built. Why any men would be more likely to come back from the engineering or any other trade in the month of October or December, 1924, than they were in the month of June or May, 1924, I do not know, for the demand was the same in May and June and the vacancies were the same. As for those who have left the country they are not coming back at the present time, and as long as trade remains good in the United States, as long as they are able to earn higher wages in America, why should they come back? I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can give me figures to show that there is a reasonable certainty of the increased number of men who are required for his programme. There must be 20,000 more bricklayers. That is the figure of his own Department. Not much difference will be made by a few hundreds coming back. There may be a seasonal flow backwards and forwards between this country and the United States in order to get higher wages for certain periods. But that is no good.
It is exactly the same with regard to material. There is no satisfactory assur-
ance from any section of the building trade or from the material manufacturing trade that they are going to supply the materials, bricks or anything else at, as the right hon. Gentleman told us in one of his speeches, the figure at which they were selling on the 1st January this year. I asked a member of a large brickmaking firm what that meant. The reply was: "It is perfectly true that we did make an arrangement with the Minister that provided that the Government"—and this is a proviso which has not been mentioned—"does not attempt to fetter the industry by vexatious legislation, no attempt will be male by any member of the federation to increase the pukes riding in January, 1924, except so far as wages and raw material might rise." But this is the point. This was strictly in reference to the Ministerial housing scheme and nothing else. If we have the price of bricks—that is the point we must know—going up by 7s. a ton, and there is a demand for them all over the country, do you think you are going to get them at the original price to build these houses? You cannot ask the trade to sell them for less than they can get from other people.

Mr. WHEATLEY: No one else will get them.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to stop the brick-making trade altogether. Is he going to say, "Unless you give me the necessary number of bricks to enable the local authority to build these houses at the price ruling on the let January, 1924, you shall not sell another brick to anybody else." That is a very tall order. Hon. Members below the Gangway know something of Free Trade. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he is going to prevent firms which are making bricks selling them at whatever price they like, unless they give him what he requires at the price of the 1st January. This is a very important question, and this is, perhaps, the last opportunity of getting an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. He has not given an answer before, either as to the question of labour or the question of materials. All he has done this afternoon is to give us hope and nothing else. He hopes that men will come back from America. He hopes that more men will go into the trade. He hopes to get bricks and he, more or less,
interjected a threat that he would not allow the firms to sell the bricks to anybody else if they did not sell them to him.
Is that all he has got to say when he goes up and down the country publishing statements in pamphlets and leaflets that he is going to build 2½ million houses, and I go up and down the country and say that he cannot get the labour and that he cannot build the houses under this scheme, and that it is, in effect, raising false hopes under false pretences in the minds of the people who think they are going to get these houses? I have said so on platforms, and I say it again here. The right hon. Gentleman has not satisfied the House of Commons, and he has not satisfied the country either, that he can get the necessary labour or the necessary material to build these houses. If he can, there shall be nobody more pleased than I. We all on these benches want, the. houses just as much as the right hon. Gentleman. We want to see people living in them. We want to see that those people who hope for houses will not have to live on hope only, but we do not want to see the British House of Commons pass an Act of Parliament which will raise hopes in the hearts of 2½ million families that they are going to get houses, when all the time the right hon. Gentleman cannot give one single assurance that he van build a single house under this Bill.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. MASTERMAN: We are in desperate danger of embarking on a Second Reading Debate which however excellent to listen to, is entirely in-appropriate to the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has repeated most of what he said in his speech on the Second Reading, and has added interesting embellishments explaining the pictures we have been delighted to see in the illustrated journals, showing him in the work of eager industrial performances. Otherwise, what does it all come to? It comes to a statement by the Minister that he will get the labour for his Bill, and a statement by the late Minister that the present Minister will not get the labour for his Bill. The one speaks in hope and the other in dejection. At this stage we do not propose to decide our votes either on hopes or dejection, but to try to see whether we can insert words which will make the Bill work better, even if the Bill itself is not
satisfactory; and we will reserve our general criticism of the Bill to the appropriate time. I find that the suggested Amendment and the speech accompanying it one of the most satisfactory things in the course of the Committee stage. I think it was well worth while having the Committee stage taken on the Floor of the House, if only to get that expression from the Minister. Members of this House are too much committed to the idea that the Minister of Health for the next three years will be exactly the same individual as the right hon. Gentleman who at present occupies that office. I do not say that I should object to that on primary grounds, but it may be a subject of objection. In any case what we are doing is this, surely.
The House gave what we call the Chamberlain scheme two years to run, at the end of which time it was to come to an end. The House is giving very little more than two years for this scheme to run. The House can criticise it at any moment during those two years. We are now putting in words which will assist the House to demand of any Minister to break it if it is not working at the end of two years. Surely that is a good thing to do. I do not want the same Government, but I should not at all object to the same Minister in office if he was carrying out the principles which he has laid down this afternoon—by using every means, by training, by the use of the education authorities, which he could do without another Bill, merely by an estimate. The Education Estimates were down £3,600,000 this year. Perhaps under a Labour Government they will go up next year for thin purpose. The Minister has suggested, what we know, that there is a possibility in the immediate future of producing houses far more cheaply and by different methods and by the use of different materials. I am as confident as I am that I am standing here, that at least by 1939, when this programme is closed, the municipalities will not be building brick boxes as outlined under this scheme, and I am very doubtful whether they will be doing so on a very large scale after the three years.
The last speaker said that nothing was being given to anyone by the Minister's Amendment. Something is very definitely being given by the Minister's Amendment, which is practically an incorporation of
the words of my hon. Friend behind me. This is a warning and a statement in public to the organised building trust that if they will not put their house in order and will not, not only arrange for the building when it is wanted, but arrange for the training of the building before it is wanted, in order that it may be available when wanted, and also arrange for the appropriate number of apprentices, then this House has decided that their contract and their treaty shall come to an end. That is why it is eminently worth while putting in that Amendment. I would suggest to the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Oliver) that he might see his way, especially considering the present confusion of the building industry, and in view of the fact that we may adopt other types and courses of building, to accept the Minister's Amendment as a definite and very real concession.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I want to avoid the danger of taking part in a Second Reading Debate, because I realise that this is the Committee stage. There is one aspect of the statement made by the Minister of Health upon which I wish to comment. That is his reference to the possibility of substitutes for building. It is very desirable that the remainder of the Debate on the Bill should not be coloured by unwarranted hopes in that direction. The idea of substitutes for house building is not a new one. Thirty or forty years ago people were talking about steel and concrete and wooden houses, but they have never come to anything, and to-day all these substitutes are still in an experimental stage. I am prepared to grant that if a satisfactory substitute, say, concrete or wood or steel, for bricks was discovered, no combination of workmen could stand in the way of it. It would not be desirable that any combination of workmen or of employers should stand in the way of progress. But there are very great dangers. There are concrete buildings now. Some of them are passably good, but quite a number of experiments in concrete building have been a very great failure, indeed.
On the eastern outskirts of London I could take hon. Members to large numbers of working-class houses made of concrete and constructed seven or eight years ago. You could put your fist in between the concrete and the window frames, and
owing to the bad mixture of the concrete—it is almost impossible to avoid bad mixture in the preparation of concrete blocks—it is possible to pick and crumble away the corners of the blocks. Other objections could be urged in regard to concrete. I do not say that they could not be overcome. Probably they could. But we ought to go very carefully before we base arguments in regard to this Bill upon what is a mere experiment. With regard to steel being used for the building of working-class cottages, I can foresee one very great objection. It might not appeal to some hon. Members opposite. The test of all these substitutes is this: Would you be prepared to live in such houses? If not, why not? We may not agree, but I hold the view that we are all equal in flesh and blood, even though we may not be equal in mental and spiritual attributes. So far as steel is concerned, in small cottage building, if you have your woodwork inside your steel houses, I maintain that unless you have some new method about which I know nothing, if at the end of a row of cottages you started knocking a nail in the wall, all about it would be known at the end of the row and half-way round the next street. Practical objections may be urged. These things should be borne in mind, and too great hopes should not be built on the idea of substitute labour.
I would remind the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) that between 1920 and the present time no fewer than 20,000 bricklayers have left the Bricklayers' Union in this country. Some of them have gone abroad. Most of them have either been absorbed in other industries temporarily, or have been demoralised by the bad conditions due to unemployment and so forth. A good number of these men, I am sure, would be available for bringing back into the industry, provided that reasonably decent conditions were secured in the industry. On the general question of apprenticeship, I hold that you could not teach dilutees more quickly than you could teach apprentices, provided you give scientific training in your teaching. Whether or not it is practicable to take teachers from the education authorities I do not know, but I believe that there is a possibility of re-organising the industry, for one of the great disadvantages in the development of the industry in the past, one of the reasons why
apprentices have not been available, is that the training has not been satisfactory training. The building industry has been too much in the hands of small men, who have taken advantage of the cheap apprentice labour in order to make them general errand boys and so forth, leaving them to pick up their technical training. If what I have suggested is done, I am sure that you will find that the men engaged in the industry to-day will be only too pleased to encourage their sons, when there are guarantees of reasonable conditions in an industry which they regard as great and important and one of which to be proud.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Most hon. Members who have followed the course of this Bill will agree that at the moment we are dealing with the most vital matter in connection with the scheme. All the Acts of Parliament and all the money in the world will not make this scheme succeed unless the Minister of Health has the men to build the houses. I was rather surprised at the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman), who expressed great satisfaction at what had taken place this afternoon and at the Amendment suggested by the Minister of Health. To that suggested Amendment I attach little or no importance, because no words in an Act of Parliament will bring the men that we want. Secondly, I am looking at what is likely to happen in the next three years. I am not particularly concerned with what is going to happen at the end of the three years, or with the Minister's programme of 15 years, or with all the talk about 2,500,000 houses. I have heard all that talk before.

Mr. PRINGLE: Hear, hear! You used to talk it.

Sir K. WOOD: There have been all sorts of high hopes, no doubt expressed on perfectly sincere grounds, but I think that the Committee will be doing a good thing if they direct their attention to what is going to happen to this scheme during the next three years. If you were a business man approaching the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, what earthly prospect would you think there is that the right hon. Gentleman will produce the houses mentioned in the Schedule of this Bill? Where are the men coming
from? The right hon. Gentleman opposite talks about apprenticeship schemes and about bringing in the education authorities, and all the rest of it, but, even on the showing of the report of the trade itself, the men thus produced would not be available for some years to come. According to the report of the building trade, it takes longer to make a bricklayer than to make a doctor, a solicitor or a university graduate. That being so, where is the right hon. Gentleman to get his houses during the next three years? I remember the right hon. Gentleman asking the Minister with great force why an adult person should not be trained in the building trade. Only a few days ago he asked the Minister of Health, "Will you allow the local authorities of this country, if they cannot get sufficient labour, to train the necessary men, themselves?" The answer was, "No." Why then does the right hon. Gentleman express satisfaction this afternoon?
I want to know why, with dyer a million unemployed on the one hand and a great scarcity in the building trade on the other, men cannot be trained for this purpose. What is the objection? The people of the country will want to know why adequate steps are not being taken in this respect, and the scheme of the Minister will, in my judgment, fail because he has not secured the necessary dilution—there is no reason why we should not use that word—in the building trade. When the Minister was negotiating with the building trade the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote an article in an American newspaper in which he said that in his judgment there was a reasonable prospect of dilution being obtained in return for the 15 years' guarantee. Why has it not been obtained? Why are we pretending that there is any earthly hope for this scheme during the next three years when, wherever one goes throughout the country, there are notices asking for more men. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to make us believe that by an Amendment or by a device in a Bill something is going to be done. Nothing will be done until you have the men to do it and the Minister would be acting wisely if he again approached the trade. He is not asking the building unions to build houses for people in Park Lane. He is asking
them to increase the number of personnel in order to build cottages for their own fellow workers. Why cannot they do it and why should not they do it? Until the right hon. Gentleman does something in that direction all the Amendments and all the Bills in the world will not secure houses.

Mr. SUNLIGHT: My mind goes back 20 years to the time when I attended a technical school, and, with all respect to the Minister, I think he has been treating the Committee as though we were a lot of apprentices. On the Second Reading of this Bill the Minister definitely said he was not going to interfere with the building industry, but was going to leave it to masters and men to work out their own programme and their own plans. He also said he was going to bring in a Bill to secure that the prices of building materials should not be more than the prices ruling in January last. I feel the Amendment suggested by the Minister is not going to be effective, and, in view of what he said in the Second Reading Debate, I should like him to accept an Amendment to his Amendment by including the words
if a local authority has failed to secure that the cost of the houses to be built will not exceed the cost ruling in January, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, for similar houses.
That would cover both prices of material and rates of wages. I do not wish to bring any ill-feeling into this Debate, but I understand a good deal more than most hon. Members about the present building dispute. I think the Minister admitted on Second Reading that while he was preparing his draft the men approached him with requests that he should accept the principle of "wet-time" and that kind of thing, and he told us on the Second Reading that he refused to entertain the proposal, but left it to the trade itself as a matter outside his scope. If my Amendment were accepted all arguments and quarrelling as to rates of wages and prices of materials would be left to the trade itself, and these words would really be a warning to all who contemplate engaging in house building that they would have to work out their prices in accordance with the prices prevailing in January last for the next three years at any rate. I do not think that any clever artistic fram-
ing of Clauses will do any good so long as the Minister says he is not going to interfere in the trade. I agree with a good deal of what was said by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). I remember 20 years ago, when I was a pupil, all sorts of ideas such as he describes were formulated. It may be that some day some scheme may be evolved, but, for the time being, I am quite definite in my conviction, as I said in connection with my proposal as to the size of bricks, that we shall have the brick problem with us so long as we have the house-building problem. I would therefore press the Committee to agree to my Amendment to the right lion. Gentleman's Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must indicate where he desires his Amendment to be inserted.

Mr. GWYNNE: On a point of Order. Is the Minister's Amendment before the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN: The Minister's Amendment will not come up until we reach the proper place for its insertion.

Mr. SUNLIGHT: I will pass from my proposed Amendment to the Amendment for the moment. The Minister read out certain words which he proposed to insert at the end of line 42, and I thought I was in order in suggesting an Amendment of those words.

The CHAIRMAN: No; the Minister has suggested that he proposes to move this Amendment in place of three other Amendments. The hon. Member will be entitled to ask the Minister to incorporate the words he suggests in the Amendment or to move those words as an Amendment to the Amendment when it comes before the Committee.

Mr. SUNLIGHT: I will ask the Minister to embody these words in his Amendment. I appeal to the Committee to realise that all these Amendments dealing with the augmentation of labour and the price of materials are fruitless. What we are concerned with is to ensure that the cost of building these houses shall be kept at the price to which the House of Commons is prepared to agree, and I suggest that in the programmes of the next two years if a total authority cannot secure tenders at a price equivalent to
the price ruling for similar houses last January the contribution should be withheld from such local authority. That would be a definite and practical instruction to the local authority, and it would then be up to the local authorities to obtain the houses at the prices ruling in January last.

Sir T. INSKIP: This discussion is in danger of becoming discursive and perhaps prolonged, and in view of the large number of Amendments on the Paper, I am sure the Minister desires a curtailment in the number of Second Heading speeches which are being delivered. I do not propose to discuss the general question. My right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) has expressed the view which we on this side of the House take as to the inadequacy of the arrangements proposed for the supply of labour. We must live on the hope which the Minister himself has expressed. I only rise in order to suggest to the Minister that although the time for considering his Amendment has not yet arrived, it would be in the interests of the Bill that the Amendment which he is prepared to insert on the suggestion of hon. Members below the Gangway should not be added to the Bill. As my right hon. Friend has said, the Amendment does not add anything to the Bill, and I do not suppose the Minister himself thinks it adds very much. I gather that he intends to propose it because he feels the force of the criticism made from below the Gangway and from elsewhere that it is necessary to include something in tire Bill to show that he appreciates the difficulty of providing labour or material in sufficient quantities to produce the houses scheduled in the Bill. The Amendment as suggested by the Minister is, however, unsatisfactory.
Clause 4 is intended to be a sort of notice to all parties who have joined in these rather vague and elusive guarantees that, unless the houses are produced, the Minister will withdraw the subsidy. It is intended as a spur to those who are to provide the houses and a notice that, unless they do so, they cannot count upon the subsidy. If the Minister's Amendment be accepted, his power to withdraw the subsidy will be affected to the extent that it will be necessary for him, presumably, to show that inadequate arrange-
ments have been made for the necessary increases in the supply of labour and the exact interpretation of the epithets employed may lead to serious differences of opinion, making it difficult or impossible for the Minister to put his Order into execution. If, on the other hand, these words be not added, the Minister will retain the powers he possesses under the Bill as it is drawn to withdraw the subsidy if he is satisfied that the number of houses is not being produced. That is a very clear test, and I think the Minister will notice the difference between having a clear arithmetical test and a test of a shifting and vague character dependent upon the different interpretations which may be put upon such epithets as "adequate" and "reasonable." Reasonableness and adequacy require standards by which they can be judged, and it is not desirable, even with the best motives, to include such words in the Bill. We have already included in the Bill a number of provisions which mean less than they are intended to mean and which are clothed in vague terms. In fact this Bill is becoming more a manifesto than a Bill.
I am not complaining of the spirit in which the Minister proposes to add these words or of the spirit of his statement, except that he has not told us, as some of us hoped he would be able to tell us, that he has a certainty of being able to provide the necessary labour and material. I think he is putting in these words to show that he is sensible of the danger in which he may find himself in a year or 18 months, and he wants the building industry to know that, unless it plays up the contribution will not be made. What I want him to do is to realise the danger of putting in words which are vague and capable of different interpretations, and which quite likely may fetter him or his successor in coming to a clear conclusion as to whether the emergency has arisen upon which he may withdraw the subsidies. If the right hon. Gentleman, having made his speech to the Committee this evening and having accepted in principle the criticisms of the hon. Member below the Gangway, will leave it at that, I suggest that all that is useful has been done by this discussion, and that it would be better to agree not to attempt any of these words, which really effect a great deal less than is intended and may possibly lead to some difficulty in the future.

Colonel GRETTON: On a point of Order. I understand that three Amendments are now being discussed together, one of which is in my name. If that be so, may I have an opportunity of saying something before the discussion closes?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): I understand that is so, and the hon. and gallant Member will certainly have; an opportunity.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The three Amendments now under discussion are the ones in the name of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Sir G. McCrae), which has been moved, the Amendment in the name of the same hon. Gentleman, in page 5, line 42, at end, to insert a new paragraph (b), and an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. P. Oliver), in page 5, line 34, at end, to insert a new paragraph (a).

Colonel GRETTON: Then what about mine?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment, in page 5, line 33, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall," I propose to call.

Colonel GRETTON: There are two Amendments in my name, the one to which you have just referred, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, and one in page 5, line 35, to leave out paragraph (a) and to insert a new paragraph (a). May I ask whether either of these is under discussion?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member is not one of those under discussion.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: The Amendments which are now under discussion relate solely to matters of labour and material supply, and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) is one dealing with the annual revision, which is quite a different point. May I ask the Committee to come to an early decision on the matter which is now under discussion? I will not follow certain speakers who have raised very large questions, because we are dealing only with the conditions under
which the Government liability to pay contributions shall be terminated. It has been suggested that, we should set out what has been called a warning to the industry, and in the Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend that point was met, and also any other points under which it might be competent for the Minister to make an order, because where the deficiency is due to labour or material the only point raised in the Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend—

Sir T. INSKIP: Is the hon. Member not aware that those words can only mean in their proper interpretation something in the nature of a deficiency of materials or supplies, and if the Attorney-General were here, he would tell him that the words would be construed in that sense? They are limiting words.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend in place of the three Amendments to which reference has been made. It may be true that they are in general terms, but the Committee must bear in mind that the object of considering this is to determine whether the Minister shall make an order, and it will not be merely for the Minister to decide that for himself. That, of course, will have to come before the House, and the House will then consider whether, not merely these considerations which have been emphasised in this Debate, but other considerations, are such as to entitle the House to bring the agreement to an end. I hope the hon. Members who have the three Amendments in question on the Paper will withdraw them, when my right hon. Friend will move his Amendment at the appropriate place.

Mr. BLACK: I should not have intervened had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who, I understand, represents, or is connected with, the building trade, and I should like to ask the Committee not to take too much notice of his speech. I can bring evidence that there are going to be substantial efforts made to substitute the ordinary building by a fresh process of building, which will probably very seriously influence the situation. On Saturday I was down in my constituency, and I was very much surprised to find a notice in the local
paper, in very thickly leaded type, that the Royal Agricultural Society's show-ground, with other sites within the city of Leicester, had been purchased by a syndicate, which was going to put up at least 1,500 houses at a cost of £250 each, without any subsidy whatever from the Government, and that those houses were to be let at a sum of 9s. a week each. There was to be no application, I was informed, for the subsidy. The full details of the project were not put into the paper, but we have here a private enterprise which is going to invest £375,000 in the erection of 1,500 houses at £250 each, and I put it to the Committee that no syndicate of private builders are going to invest any such sum as that unless they are very fully persuaded in their own minds that they are going to get a fair and adequate return for their money.
If the hon. Gentleman who has spoken is firmly convinced from his experience of the trade that no houses erected of concrete will be of any permanent value, his opinion is altogether different from the opinion of these people, who are prepared to back up theirs by the provision of this very large amount of capital. This proposal has been a kind of bombshell to the city of Leicester. The City Council has been going on painfully building houses with the labour that is available, and all that I desire to do is to point the attention of the Committee to this fact, which cannot be got over, and to suggest that the future of the Bill should be taken into consideration with this fact clearly in mind, so that in the investment of this huge sum of money, which I calculate will come to £1,350,000,000, spread over the 60 years, and that in the initial stages, during the first 15 years, will cause to be provided the sum of £1,200,000,000 to be handed over to the builders, this new situation which has arisen, and which, if successful in Leicester, no doubt will be imitated all over the country and may have a very potent influence on the proposals which are being brought forward, may be taken into account. I hope the Committee will be interested to know this fact, and will bear it in mind in any future consideration of this subject.

Sir G. McCRAE: I have considered very carefully the terms of the Amendment proposed by the Minister of Health, and, as they are in exactly the same words as the Amendment which I have moved
I am quite prepared to accept the Minister's new form and to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: Mr. Thomson.

Sir G. McCRAE: On a point of Order. There is another Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. P. Oliver) and others dealing with apprentices.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The other two Amendments will have to be withdrawn, and the Minister's Amendment will have to be moved in the right place. It cannot be moved here.

Mr. SUNLIGHT: On a point of Order. During the Debate on the Amendment just withdrawn, I asked the Chair whether I was in order in moving an Amendment to the Minister's Amendment. Am I in order in moving it now?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is, I understand, an Amendment to the Amendment which has been withdrawn.

Mr. SUNLIGHT: No, my Amendment was an Amendment to the Minister's.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is nut now before the Committee, and I do not call the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, at the end, to insert the words
other than houses in respect of which a local authority have before that date, with the approval of the Minister, either themselves commenced election or entered into a contract therefor.
This Clause deals with the circumstances under which the Minister may make an order declaring that no contributions shall be made, and the purpose of my Amendment is to exclude from any such order houses which have already been commenced or sanctioned by local authorities and approved by the Minister. It seems to me to be such an obviously common-sense Amendment that I believe the Minister will feel compelled to accept it.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I think it would be unfair to penalise a local authority in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member, therefore I accept the Amendment.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out from the word "houses" to the end, and to insert instead thereof the words
approved by the Minister or die Board, the erection of which has been commenced, or in respect of which a contract has been entered into before that date.
I hope the Minister and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) will see their way to substitute the Amendment which I am moving, for this reason. The Amendment of the hon. Member deals only with houses that are being built by e local authority. It is very undesirable, as I think the Minister will agree, that where a public: utility society or a private company has had houses definitely approved, they should be penalised any more than the local authority. I think they will agree that these words should be made general, so as to apply to any houses approved by the Minister. That is the sole object of the words I have put down.

Mr. WHEATLEY: My intention was that the Amendment I accepted should cover what the Noble Lord has suggested, and, perhaps, in the circumstances, as it will be necessary to give the matter some consideration, the Noble Lord will leave it to me to see that an Amendment is inserted to meet the purpose of both these Amendments.

Mr. SUNLIGHT: I am bound to object to the Amendment, and to bring personal experience to the notice of the Committee upon this point. I have personal experience of a firm of builders in Lancashire, who were building about 500 or 1,000 houses for the Manchester Corporation, withdrawing all their bricklayers from commercial building, and putting them on to these houses, in order to lay a foot of brickwork so as to bring them within such a Clause as we are considering, and thereby obtain the advantage of the terms. What the Minister now proposes is absolutely undercutting the whole Bill in so far as the right to withdraw contributions in certain eventualities is concerned.

Mr. MILLS: Will the Minister tell us how far retrospectively this is likely to apply?

Mr. WHEATLEY: It applies to houses where work is being done by local
authorities, or to houses where a contract has been entered into.

Lord E. PERCY: On the understanding that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough withdraws his Amendment, I will withdraw mine.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I understood that the Minister would accept my Amendment, and consider words to meet the Noble Lord on Report.

Mr. WHEATLEY: On account of the point raised by the Noble Lord, I would ask the hon. Member also to withdraw his Amendment, and I will give effect to it.

Mr. THOMSON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir CYRIL COBB: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, at the end, to insert the words
The order shall be published in the 'London Gazette' and the Edinburgh Gazette,' but the date specified in the order shall not be earlier than nine months after the date of publication of the order.
This Amendment is to safeguard the position of local authorities. There is nothing in the Clause to ensure that the local authority has due notice of any order issued by the Minister for the withdrawal of the contributions. That is the first point. I should like the Minister to assure me that local authorities shall have due notice of an order. My second point is that there are two dates mentioned in this Clause, namely, the date of the order itself, and the date specified in the order. The date specified in the order is the date after which no further contributions will be payable. What I am suggesting in my Amendment is that it would better safeguard local authorities if there were some definite ascertainable time between the date of the order and the date specified in the order, after which no further contributions would be payable. It is very important that the local authorities should have an opportunity of knowing how long they have to finish houses, so that they may not be deprived of their contributions, and, by making some exertion for a short period of time, they may be able to earn those contributions. Therefore, I urge an
Amendment of this sort to ensure these two things, first of all due official notice of the order, and, secondly, as ascertainable time between the date of the order and the date specified in the order, so that the local authorities may have due notice, the object of the Bill being to produce houses, and not to take away the contributions front the local authorities.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I suggest to the hon. Member that, on the first point, the Amendment is not necessary. The order is required to be placed before Parliament, and, therefore, its existence will be known to the whole world. I am quite satisfied that the reports of Parliamentary proceedings have a wider circulation than the medium proposed in this Amendment. As regards the second point, if the hon. Member will look at Sub-section (3) of this Clause, he will see that the date has to be specified in the order. It is left to Parliament to fix the date, and I am sure Parliament will take the reasonable view that the hon. Member takes, that we should not plunge a local authority, that has been doing its best, into difficulties because certain circumstances have arisen.

Sir C. COBB: Would it not be possible to put the limit both ways, so as to have not less than a certain number of months, and not more than a certain number of months?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would appeal to the hon. Member to leave Parliament free. I think we can trust Parliament.

Sir C. COBB: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 33, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
The making of an Order should not be left to the discretion of the Minister. Either a sufficient number of houses is not being erected under a scheme, or the cost of the houses erected is excessive and extravagant. Those two causes are so important that, I submit, the circumstances ought to be brought before Parliament, which should be consulted as to whether the scheme is to be continued under the new circumstances, or wound up, and the
Order made by the Minister accepted. The Attorney-General may have something to say on this matter. I am not a lawyer, and do not profess to be. It is the old controversy between "may" and "shall." I know legal authorities sometimes say that "may " in an Act of Parliament means "shall," but if we mean "shall," then "shall " should be put in the Bill, and the Bill be made mandatory. It should not be left to the discretion of the Minister. The Minister has discretion as to the making of an Order in Sub-section (1), but in Sub-section (2) Parliament should be informed whether the Order is to be made, or even if the Order is not to be made. These two reasons are fundamental, and surely no one, however able and however well-intentioned, ought to be given this discretion.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Perhaps it will satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman if I show him that, if his Amendment were carried, it would have exactly the opposite effect from the one he has stated. He said he is anxious that Parliament should be consulted with regard to the making of an Order. If this Amendment were carried, it would not be necessary to consult Parliament at all, because the Minister is given his instructions now that he "shall" make the Order, and even although a local authority had only one house short of the number stated in the Schedule, and although it was perfectly obvious that if the Order came before Parliament, Parliament would reject it and the country would not tolerate it—even it all these circumstances were to exist, if this Amendment were carried, the Minister is here and now instructed that he "shall" make an Order. Speaking from memory, there is a further Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member in which he says that that Order would continue to operate unless a Resolution were passed by Parliament cancelling it. So that he is taking the whole power of Parliament and handing it over to the Minister, while arguing at the same time that Parliament should be consulted.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I submit that the Minister is quite wrong. It. is the old question of "may" and "shall." I think the whole Committee are agreed that if the scheme
breaks down, the Minister has, over and over again, threatened the building trade that he will make an Order to put an end to the contributions.

Mr. WHEATLEY: With the consent of Parliament.

6.0 P.M

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Quite. Whether the Minister makes an Order under "may" or "shall" the Order equally comes under Clause 6, which says:
Before any order is made by the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health under this Act, a draft of the proposed order shall he laid before the Commons House of Parliament.
The point is this: By virtue of the word "may," which my hon. and gallant Friend seeks to leave out, in order to insert "shall," there is a discretion left to the Minister, who may submit the matter to Parliament, but if the word "shall" is inserted, then the Minister must make the Order. The matter, however, is provided for by Clause 6, and this carries out the undertaking given by the Minister over and over again, that if the building trade, so to speak, do not come up to the scratch, then he will make the order.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): If this alteration be made in Sub-section (2) of the Clause so that it is provided that the Minister "shall" make an order, then it will make the Clause inconsistent with Clause 6. I do not think my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, if I may say so, is quite right in what he said in this respect.

Sir T. INSKIP: If inconsistency is the only objection to the alteration, would not the words "save as is hereinafter provided" get over the difficulty?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend, but if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will look further they will see that the proposed Amendment is entirely inconsistent with the two following paragraphs. Quite apart, however, from the question of the Clause, and of more importance, is the question of the cases that may arise, for it may so happen—it is quite conceivable—that for some reason the projected schemes are not fulfilled, and it is not desirable, without knowing all the
particular circumstances of the case, that the Minister "shall" be hound to make an order. However, there is a desire that this matter should be more fully discussed, and we shall try to find an opportunity for that, and I urge upon my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Gretton) under these circumstances not to press his Amendment.

Colonel GRETTON: The learned Attorney-General took a certain case, and I am glad to hear that he agrees that there is relevance in what has been put forward from this side on this particular matter. What I want is that Parliament shall be called into consultation in relation to these orders which are set out in the latter part of the Clause, and that it shall be clearly stated and brought before Parliament, and that Parliament shall have the power to control the action of the Minister. In view of the suggested consideration between now and Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. P. OLIVER: I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, at the end, to insert the words
(a) if at any time after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, the number of apprentices in each of the following trades, namely, bricklayers and masons, carpenters and joiners, slaters and tilers, plasterers, and plumbers, is less than one to every three craftsmen.
I should like some assurance from the, Minister in relation to this Amendment before I withdraw it. I should like an assurance, at any rate, on one or two points. There is one , point in which, I think, his proposed Amendment is far from effective as compared with the proposal not only of myself, but of my hon. friends (Mr. Simon) and (Mr. Alstead). In my Amendment there is a specific date. I have attempted to lay down that if there were a sufficient supply of houses produced by that date then this Order should not have effect Where there is not a sufficient supply of houses the contribution should be withdrawn. In the proposed wording of the Minister, it is necessary, in the first place, that there should be a deficiency of houses which may be caused by a deficiency of material or labour or some other reason—I think a rather important distinction. I should like the Minister to envisage what may happen at the end of the first year in
1927. Let us imagine what will happen then. At that period, according to the Schedule, as we have it in the Bill at the present time, there ought to be erected as a maximum 190,000 houses during the two years, or a minimum two-thirds of that number, that is to say 127,000. That is 90,000 houses approximately within the two years 1925–6. I have no doubt at all that these houses will be erected, It is a very moderate programme indeed. It is possible that at the end of 1926, or the beginning of 1927, you will have your required number of houses according to the scheme and, therefore, the Ministry cannot reconsider any scheme they have accepted.
You may have the requisite number of houses, but it may be obvious that you are under-staffed in apprentices and other labour for the great advance in 1927–8, and subsequent years. It may be quite possible at the end of the first period, though you may have your houses and no deficiency, that your labour is so inadequate that the scheme must sooner or later fall to the ground, and an extended programme be impossible. That is a matter which, I think, the Minister might well reconsider in this connection. In the wording that he has drafted there is one other point which I wish to make This is undoubtedly a limiting Clause. It would seem necessary to call in here the Attorney-General, who, perhaps, will give us the benefit of his opinion. If the Amendment of the Minister be accepted, it will limit the power of the Minister, and the time to terminate the Government contributions to places where a deficiency of houses is due to a deficiency in building material, the supply of labour, and similar cases. That is the interpretation under this Clause. It is the recognised way of interpreting documents, and it will be found that this Clause, so far from extending the powers of the Minister, actually limits those powers. If this Clause does so limit the powers of the Minister, I do not think we ought to be asked to accept it in lieu of some wider Clause, and I should like an assurance upon that point.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The Mover of the Amendment has said that his desire is that one of the conditions should be such as to provide for a supply of men and materials on a certain date. That is what I hope to do by my Amendment.
It is true that the date in the Amendment is one on which we shall consider whether or not the building industry has kept its agreement, but I hope my hon. Friend will not press the date given, 31st March, 1926. The point has been made as to whether these words add anything effective to what is now in the Bill. I doubt it, and for this reason: The Bill as it stands now lays down (he conditions on which an Order can be made. The first, broadly, is that if the trade has not given us the number of houses promised; or that they have not given us those houses at the price promised. If the Ministry have these two conditions, I think there will he no difficulty in the question of the date. I might contemplate certain circumstances in which it will have been possible to comply with these conditions, and still may not have given us the spirit that has been promised. We may for sonic reason have a stoppage in commercial building. We might get during those two years a flow of labour from other quarters temporarily into the provision of houses. In that way we should get our quota for that period. But it is perfectly clear that in the future a certain number would be with drawn from house building, and that they would not have a sufficient number of recruits to provide the houses for the following period. It is to meet that contingency that these words were introduced as far as an essential and sufficient supply of labour and materials on a certain date are concerned, and we are assured by the building industry that this is provided for in my Amendment.

Lord E. PERCY: I am astonished at the last remark made by the Minister. He now suggests that the words proposed will not have a limiting effect. He says that at. present you have two grounds on which the Minister may make an Order; firstly, on the ground that the houses have not been delivered, and, secondly, on the ground that they have been delivered at an exorbitant price. I suggest two extra conditions, that if there is not enough labour or material there should be this limit, hut the Minister is not providing for anything of that kind. He simply says that, as regards the first of the circumstances mentioned in the Bill—when the houses have not been delivered—he should be able to make an Order where the houses have not been delivered owing to a shortage of labour or material. The Amendment is quite
definite and provides for a continuance of this scheme subject to definite conditions as to apprentices, and I should like to support it for this reason. I should like to see something in the Bill which is quite clear and definite, and not merely a manifesto instead of a piece of legislation.
I want to ask the Minister a question about apprenticeship. The right hon. Gentleman said he was taking special steps to see that a number of apprentices was increased, and increased more rapidly than under the existing arrangements. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he had discussed this matter, not with the National Housebuilding Committee or the building industry, but with the men's leaders. He told us that he wished to enlist the assistance of the local education authorities, but that is no new proposal, and that is a scheme which has already been considered. The difficulty in the way is that the local education authority very strongly object to using their resources, even with the ordinary percent age grant, for pure craft trade. The Minister does not indicate how he proposes to do any of these things. He says that he has discussed this matter with the men's leaders, but not with the education authorities, and not even with the President of the Board of Education. He says that this is what he would like to do, but when he does it he will find that there is a very considerable difference of opinion about it. He has, however, taken one step. He has spoken to the men's leaders, and he also says that he hopes that if a scheme of training like this is undertaken the period of apprenticeship will be short, although he has no agreement to that effect and he does not say that he has discussed that particular point. Does the right lion. Gentleman mean that he has discussed with the men's leaders how to increase the num her of apprentices, and that he did not mention the only thing that really meters, and over which the leaders of the men have control, that is the period of apprenticeship demanded by trade union Rules? Surely when he brings forward an educational scheme, and says that he has only discussed it with the men's leaders and has not discussed the one point upon which they can assist him, it is rather a remarkable way of proceeding

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: This discussion is rather difficult to follow, and I would like to know if we are going to take the whole of the discussion on this Amendment.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The manuscript Amendment has not yet been moved.

Mr. VIANT: We are really discussing the question of how to get the houses erected, and how to augment the supply of labour. This is the first opportunity I have had of speaking on this Bill. I would like to mention that I have served my apprenticeship in the building industry, and I have been the vice-chairman of the National Conciliation Board of the Building Trade. I have given very careful consideration to this Amendment, and it is evident that those responsible for it have started off on the assumption that the number of those engaged in the various grades in the industry at the present time are exactly in their relative proportions, and they desire to multiply them by three, and that is to be done by the date stated in the Amendment. I wish to point out that at the present moment the numbers required in the industry are in the proportion needed. There are, as a matter of fact, carpenters and joiners unemployed at the present time, quite apart from any strike or lock-out. There are slaters unemployed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] I am speaking with an intimate knowledge of the industry, and I know. Stonemasons and bricklayers were unobtainable, but I want to point out that, if this Amendment be incorporated in the Bill, you will simply drive the builder out of the business, because in accepting the contract you will provide that he has to supplement the number of apprentices, but not in the exact proportion in which they are needed in the respective trades, with the result that the contractor is going to have a surplus of carpenters and joiners over and above the number required. The result will be that in practice this Amendment will not work out in the interests of the community in the sense that it is going to give you more houses, but it is going to be a handicap as far as those engaged in the industry are concerned. The only hope of supplementing the labour obtainable is by obtaining the goodwill of those engaged in the industry either as em-
ployers or operatives. If the operatives, apart, from the employers, see that this proposal is going to flood the number of men engaged in particular trades they are going to hold aloof from working the scheme, and on these grounds I appeal to those responsible for putting forward this Amendment to withdraw it, because it is not going to assist in supplementing the labour which is required.

Mr. P. OLIVER: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CLARRY: I beg to move, in page 5, line 35, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert instead thereof the words
(a) if, in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-six or in any succeeding year, the Minister and Board are satisfied that the total number of houses which have bean completed in the year last preceding and in respect of which contributions are payable is less than two-thirds of the number set opposite to that year in the First Schedule to this Act (being the maximum number completed in that year in respect of which contribution may be lawfully made).
This Amendment will give reasonable assistance to the Minister in defining the position with regard to contributions. Should he at any time find the amount of labour to be inadequate, or should he be unable to obtain co-operation, it would enable him to Come to a decision with regard to the contribution each year instead of every third year. That would necessitate altering the Schedule by putting down the number for each year instead of lumping them together as is
the case now.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The effect of this Amendment would be to make an annual revision an obligation on us, instead of the triennial revision now provided for. I submit to the Committee that it would not be reasonable that we should be deprived of the opportunity of having sonic period over which we could take an average. Houses are not things that you can turn out at the rate of so many per hour, and I think the three years for
which we have provided is about the shortest reasonable period that. we could have inserted in the Bill. The proposal contained in this Amendment would not only he a breach of the understanding with the building industry, but would be a breach of the understanding with the
local authorities, and I hope that the Amendment. will not be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

Captain ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, after the word "houses," to insert the words
for England and Wales or for Scotland.
Tins Amendment raises a point of considerable importance. We are dealing here with a transaction of extraordinary size. We are dealing with the expenditure of no less than £1,000,000,000 of public money, and it is urgently necessary to make sure that the scheme actually has a chance to accomplish what, no doubt, the Minister intends. One of the objects of the scheme is that it should provide a certain compulsitur over the building trade. I take it that it is not merely a scheme for shovelling out so much public money. The Minister desires to expend a very large sum of money with the abject of dovetailing a completed scheme together, of which the gist and essence is contained in the First Schedule to this Bill. The First Schedule lays down the number of houses which are to be delivered by the building trade in every accounting period. It may be, and I think it is, rather an unusual thing for us to realise that this Schedule provides, not merely for the houses which are to be supplied in England, but also for the houses which are to be supplied in Scotland, and that there is no differentiation whatever, nor any suggestion of any allocation, as between the two countries. I should like to point out to the Minister, firstly, that the guarantee which he claims to have got for England is by no means so firm a guarantee, if, indeed, it be a guarantee at all, in the case of Scotland. The Report of the Building Trades Committee, on which the Minister founds himself, has a separate section at the end dealing with the position in Scotland, and one finds there a very different resolution from the firm resolution, ending with the guarantee, which is really the bones of the Building Trade Committee's Report. The only resolution which was specifically passed dealing with this question in regard to Scotland was as follows:—
Subject to satisfactory conditions and guarantees the building and materials industries in Scotland are prepared to do the utmost to help the Government in the proposed housing scheme.
There is no word or suggestion of any fixed estimate such as has been delivered to the Minister in dealing with the United Kingdom as a whole, and, further, it states that
The Committee desires to add that it is in sympathy with all the views and proposals indicated in the other sections of the House Building Report.
"In sympathy" is a very much weaker statement than the statements which have been made dealing with the situation as it applies to the United Kingdom as a whole. The guarantee should apply, surely, with much greater force in Scotland than it does in England. The housing conditions, and, indeed, all the conditions, are lamentably worse in Scotland than in England. If they need remedying anywhere, they need remedying in Scotland. If they are falling behind anywhere, they are falling behind in Scotland. If there is a shortage of labour anywhere, there is a shortage of labour in Scotland. The shortage is greater, the need is greater, and, therefore, the need for this compulsitur over the building trade is greater in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Let me point out that we are not dealing here with a mere suggestion brought forward by the Opposition. Let me point out the view of the Government on this matter—the statement made by the responsible Minister on the Second Beading of this Bill. The Under-Secretary for Health, on the Second Reading of the Bill, gave the following pledge to the House:
If I understand the Bill aright, it contains provision for a total of 2,500,000 houses to be built in the course of 15 years. Of that number something like 500,000 are to he allotted to Scotland, a much greater number than in proportion to its population because of the particular circumstances that affect housing in Scotland in a greater degree than in England."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1924; cols. 150 and 157, Vol. 175.]
There is not a word, not a whisper, of that in the Bill. There has never been a suggestion from the responsible Minister that that is the Minister's intention, or that he intends to take any steps to carry out this pledge, which was given on the Second Reading of the Bill only last month on the Floor of the House by the. Minister responsible. I submit that we are entitled to claim that the Government should put into this Bill what they have said on the Floor of the House. We are
not acting unreasonably in asking them to implement their verbal pledge by legislation, and to that one must have some words enacting that the quota of houses must be delivered by the building industry in Scotland as well us in England. It would be madness for us to leave this Bill to go through as it is, because, in such circumstances, of the 190,000 houses that it is proposed to build in the first two years, 180,000, or, indeed, the whole 190,000, might be built in England. That is what the Minister has brought forward—a legislative proposal suggesting that a certain number of houses should be built, and if they are all built in the part of the country which needs them least, we shall have no power whatever of breaking our agreement, or even of calling the attention of the trade to the fact that it is falling behind as compared with its agreement. Everything that the Minister has said this afternoon strengthens and reinforces the case that I am now trying to make, and the Attorney-General has pointed out that "may" means "may" and "shall" means "shall." The passing of such an Amendment as this would not compel the Government to make any order, but would merely leave it in their power to say to the building trade: "You are falling behind with your proposals as far as regards Scotland, and, if you do not take steps to augment the supply of building labour in Scotland, then we shall have the right"—not the necessity—"to determine the scheme and call some new scheme into operation." I have tried to set out the position with re Bard to the number of houses in Scotland in an amended Schedule which the Committee will find later on the Paper. I have set out, firstly, the number of houses which would be built in Scotland according to the pledge—which I think was a somewhat rash pledge—given by the Minister, and, secondly, according to the allocation which would give bare justice as between the two countries. I would especially ask my colleagues from Scotland to consider the proportions of the Goschen basis on which the taxation is collected, and to note that, unless we obtain at least the number of houses in proportion to the Goschen basis, the Bill of the Minister will lead to this incredible anomaly, namely, that money would be raised from the worst housed part of the kingdom to subsidise building in the better housed part of the kingdom.

Mr. CLIMIE: That is what happens under the Addison Act.

Captain ELLIOT: The fact is that, as the hon. Member knows—

Mr. CLIMIE: What about your scheme

Captain ELLIOT: The hon. Member and myself are both Scottish Members, and I am appealing for Scottish money. I admit that the Minister has promised us English money, but I have very little hope that we shall get it. I am appealing purely for the Goschen basis, and I want to point out—

Mr. CLIMIE: You were Under-Secretary at the time.

Captain ELLIOT: I put it to the Committee as a whole that we are still carrying out building under the Addison scheme which is necessary to bring our allocation up to the Goschen basis. We had an extension of the number of houses for a year beyond England in carrying out the building of our Addison houses, and we have, or shall need, another extension of a year. We have had from the Secretary of Scotland the statement that when the period of grace expires, on the 19th August this year, we shall still have 2,000 houses to complete under the Addison scheme, and we have been able to obtain from the Treasury the assurance that, the whole of that will he carried out, and that the State will pay every penny of the deficit on those houses. The hon. Member has asked, what about the scheme that was introduced when we were sitting on the benches opposite—the other subsidy scheme? I would point out to him that this is a 15-year programme, while we were dealing with a two-year programme. We were dealing with an admittedly experimental situation, and, what is more, we had our safety-valve, we had a balance in our scheme which is not present in this scheme. We had a slum clearance scheme under which, as the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know, I secured an allocation eight times as large as our due proportion in comparison with England. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] That was absolutely just; it was absolutely. necessary. That was a carefully balanced scheme, and, as Scotland was falling behind on the subsidy houses, we prevailed upon the Treasury to allot us a larger and larger sum to
balance that under the slum clearance proposals.
In the Minister's Bill—and, indeed, it is one of the greatest defects of the Bill—he has wrecked the slum clearance proposals by allotting 60 per cent. for new houses while only allowing 50 per cent. for slum clearance—a proposal which I could not conceive anyone bringing forward unless I saw it actually here in the Bill before me. That, again, means, of course, that from the poorest of the poor their pennies and farthings will be wrung to subsidise well-off people who can afford to pay 14s. or 15s. a week for villas on the outskirts of our great towns. What I am concerned about is to make sure—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are, no doubt, very anxious that the Bill should pass, and, indeed, so am I. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to have a platform like this on which to do our campaigning in the forthcoming year. I am trying to injure my case in the forthcoming election, because if I could go to Shettleston, Gorbals or Camlachie and tell them that the Minister has refused my proposal to make sure that for every £1 they contribute in taxation they shall get back £1, and that he has said, "You shall pay 30s. in taxation and only get in housing, you shall pay 10s. subsidy to the men who live in Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, and you in Gorbals, Camlachie and Shettleston will sit there and rot in your stinking tenements because it is not my intention to alter the suggestion which I have brought forward," I promise myself some hours, and indeed some weeks, of very entertaining campaigning. [Interruption.] Do not let it be suggested that that. will be accounted to the Labour Government for righteousness. I think hon. Members from Scotland will appreciate the situation into which we have drifted in that country, and the fact that it is very difficult for us to carry out the scheme, not for lack of finance, not for lack of good will, but simply for lack of labour. I have put forward two suggestions to the Minister in the Schedule. The first is the suggestion which the Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland, himself put forward, that we should have houses in the proportion of one in Scotland for four in England. I put forward the other suggestion, that we should have our eleven-eightieths, and that means for
the first two years that we should have 26,000 houses. The Minister has laid it down that the building trade is only to complete 2,000, which comes to something like 17,000 houses, and that is the programme left for the Minister by the Tory Government when it went out of office. Is he going to say he has come here for £1,000,000,000 of public money and cannot even guarantee to complete the programme the wretched, miserable, reactionary party left?

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: It is the right name to give them.

Captain ELLIOT: I suggest that the lion. Member, if he says I am hacking up the Minister who said, "No, it is no use attempting to carry out what the Tories laid down, that would wreck our Bill"—

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not saying anything. I am only agreeing with your description.

Captain ELLIOT: It is far more important to realise the description which will be given of the Minister's proposals if and when they come to be, considered by the local authorities of Scotland and by the nation as a whole. I believe Members from English constituencies also will agree in this, that Glasgow is the running sore of the Empire just now. The housing conditions in Glasgow are a disgrace to the Empire of Great Britain. The House as a whole would be willing to make some great effort to deal with the housing situation that exists in certain plague spots of the country, of which I regret to say Western Scotland is one, and if they realise that in spite of the great efforts that we are making, in spite of the enormous expenditure of public money, in spite of the great Bill which the Labour Government has brought forward as its attempt to deal with and to solve the housing difficulty, we are not even going to get as many houses as the programme the Tory Government laid down, I believe there will be an outburst of indignation which will sweep the Government out of existence. [Interruption.] I am more interested in houses than in which group of men sit on that side. I will tell you another thing as a Scotsman. I am more interested in money, and I am not anxious to see the people of Scotland
taxed to a higher degree than under this scheme they are going to receive any return for. That is what the legislation introduced by the Minister lays down, and, if the Government resist this Amendment, and indeed they have shown no sign of accepting it, they can only be resisting it because of the fact that they do not believe they will get the houses. There is no reason why they should not at least guarantee us our eleven-eightieths unless they believe that by guaranteeing it they would wreck the Bill.
I listened to the brave words of the Minister this afternoon. He said, when he was resisting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon), "Do not let us compromise with the building trade. Let us tell them, 'If you do not deliver the houses, we are going to stop. You have to deliver the houses.' " He says he has taken no power, and he is about to resist the steps we are taking to give him power, to say that to the building trade in his own country and in his own constituency. We say, "Deliver the houses, not merely in Leeds or in Sheffield, but in Shettleston." The Minister says, "No, I cannot be bothered with Shettleston. We cannot have a great scheme like this stopped because of some petty little consideration such as this." If we are not to have our proportion, that means that we shall be paying for houses which we do not receive. We in Scotland need our whole proportion, and could well do with a proportion over and above what we have been granted in the Bill, and, indeed, as high a proportion as that promised by the Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland. You cannot expect complete unanimity in any United Kingdom Government on the subject, but I claim that my Scottish colleagues will bear me out. Therefore, I am anxious to see whether, even at this late hour of the progress of the Bill, the Minister cannot find it in his heart to accept the Amendment. These words do not put any compulsion on him. They merely give him the power. If it says, "You may make an Order," that will go a long way to carrying out what I believe was in his mind when he brought forward the scheme, that we should not merely expend a certain amount of public money, but that in the expenditure of it we should acquire a certain power over the building trade of the country which we should be
able to use to make sure that labour was brought into the industry to carry out the needs of the country, which at present it is unable to carry out, not because of the lack of money but because of the lack of men, and to some extent of material.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not observe much in the way of general fundamental principles in following the wanderings of Members of the Opposition. I think this attempt to divide us up logically, not merely into England and Scotland, but into areas and towns, and probably wards, is the latest form of Unionism. I am rather pleased to see, and my optimism is confirmed as I see leading Members opposite, as the discussion of this Bill progresses, turning their minds more and more to the idea that we are going to get houses under the Bill and away from the idea, that we heard so much of in the earlier stages, that it was going to stop the building industry. In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, may I say that this Amendment would be a complete departure from the agreements that we have entered into. Taking the building agreement first, it was a national agreement. Scotland was represented at the various conferences with the building industry, and the Scottish building representatives never suggested that we should enter into a separate agreement with them. What applied to the builders applied also to the manufacturers. When we came to deal with the local authorities, again it was a national agreement that we reached, and the Scottish local authorities were represented at the conference.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite right in saying that the needs of Scotland axe much greater than the needs of any part of England and Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] You may get small parts of England and Wales in Which the conditions are equally bad, but for a mass of insanitary houses I do not think you will get anything in Great Britain which will compare with Scotland, and particularly with certain parts of Glasgow. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will also agree with me in this. We have been talking a good deal to-day about the adequate provision of men and materials, but the shortage of men and materials is greater in Scotland than in any other part
of the country, and there is a natural explanation. Scottish houses, until quite recently, were almost invariably built of stone, and we have very few brick works and bricklayers in the country. We have now completely changed the form of construction, but it will take us some years to overtake England in the production of men and of material.
7.0 P.M.
If this Amendment were carried, I am satisfied that it would injure Scotland and not help her. The hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks about splitting up the number of houses provided for in the Schedule. These are minimum and not maximum numbers. England and Wales will not object if you can so rapidly augment the supply of men and materials in Scotland as to get even more than your quota in the earlier years. I should say the hon. and gallant Gentleman would spend his time much better, instead of painting those fanciful appeals that he can make to the electors of all parts of Scotland outside Kelvin-grove, in joining—[Interruption.] I congratulate him on the success with which he contested Kelvingrove, but do not let him imagine that because of his victory there the same appeal will be successful if applied to all parts of Scotland. He himself knows, by unfortunate experience, that it would not. If you adopted this Amendment, how could you reasonably object to a similar Amendment from Wales? How could you reasonably oppose a similar Amendment for the rural areas of England? Indeed, to carry this out logically you would divide up Scotland and leave out the districts which had fairly decent housing conditions, and you would say, "In the rationing of housing, you must wait until these backyard portions have been provided for." You would work yourself down into such a crippled state that in trying to provide for everyone you would end by really providing for no one. Further, is the hon. and gallant Gentleman going to follow up the Amendment logically and say that if Scotland does not produce its quota of houses by 1927 an Order to stop the scheme in Scotland shall be made by the Minister? If he is going to do that, from my knowledge of Scotland, I have no hesitation in prophesying that, unless we get assistance from new methods of production, we
cannot overtake it in Scotland within the three years. We can over-take the programme in my opinion without any extraordinary effort if we take the country as a whole. But, as he knows, we have to make up a leeway in Scotland that does not exist in England and Wales. He would be doing this for Scotland, that at the end of 1927, if his Amendment were adopted, housebuilding would stop in Scotland while it was flourishing in England and Wales. I am sure the hon. and Gallant Member does not want that to happen, and I hope the Committee will regard this as a national agreement with both the building industry and the local authorities, and pass it as a national agreement.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I should like to make a few remarks on the speeches just delivered by the Minister in charge of the Bill and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Captain Elliot). I wish to say that I am in almost entire agreement with most of the remarks made by my hon. and gallant Friend, and, I think, if he will consider his speech in the morning, he will come to the conclusion that he was advocating a separate Bill for Scotland. I think he himself was responsible for including the Scottish Bill in the English Bill. At that time I ventured to say that was a bad thing for Scotland. I am sure my colleagues from Scotland hold the same view. To-day, I find my hon. and gallant Friend making it perfectly plain to anybody who listened that the conditions in Scotland are different. The lack of material and labour is greater, and everything connected with the housing trouble is as different as it can be from what it is in England. I am quite in agreement with him that we ought to have something more definite from the Minister. We all realise that, particularly in the western area of Scotland, there is a colossal demand for houses. Might I also put in a plea for the crofting counties. My right Friend the Minister for Health in this Bill has not said a single word with regard to the difficulty of housing in the North of Scotland. In every other Bill there has always been special legislation for the crofter counties. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is the
intention of the Government to include any provision for crofting houses. Unless we get some assurance on that point, either from him or from the Under-Secretary of Health for Scotland, we shall do what we can to oppose the remaining stages of the Bill.
I am in agreement with my right hon. Friend in this. He starts on common ground with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove. They both admit that there is a. shortage of men and materials in Scotland. If you start from that premise, it stands to reason you cannot expect to get the same amount of houses built in Scotland as in England. Under this Clause, there is a penalty imposed upon any country which does not produce within a limited time two-thirds of the houses. Two-thirds is very large. It may be 90,000 for Scotland, if we are going to believe the statement of my right hon. Friend. It is admitted that there is no material and not sufficient men to produce such a number of houses. If we cannot produce the two-thirds in Scotland, then, under this Clause, we are penalised, and no money is to be given. If these are the facts, I do not think I, for one, can support my hon. and gallant Friend. We are all anxious in all parts of the House to get as large a number of houses as possible. I should like very much to see eleven-eightieths. I should like to see the 500,000 which the Under-Secretary for Health has promised us. At the same time, I must take cognisance of what is in the Act of Parliament, and I am content to rely on the Minister of Health, who is a Scottish Member, to see that everything possible will be done to secure that the number of houses for Scotland is as large as possible.

Viscount WOLMER: I have sympathy with the Mover of this Amendment, who, as a Scottish Member, seeing Scotland has to pay its share towards the gigantic cost of this Bill, tries to secure that Scotland should have its fair proportion of houses. What amuses me is the attitude of the Minister. His only argument against my hon. and gallant Friend is that to agree to this Amendment would be contrary to his agreement. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that representatives of the building industry in Scotland were present at the conference in which the agreement was made, but apparently they did not undertake to do
their bit. I think my hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly justified in pointing out to his compatriots that, under this Bill as it now stands, Scotland will have to take a share, but the Government refuses to guarantee that it will get its share of houses. There is another thing, and that is the absolute silence of the Scottish Members on the back benches on this question. I could imagine what would have happened if a proposal of this sort had been brought forward by a wicked Tory Government. Why, even the Clyde quartette are not here to voice their indignation. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) put in a cursory appearance at the bar and listened to the right hon. Gentleman making his speech, but he did not think it worth while coming into the House to raise his protest, not even when the Minister said, if it was necessary to insist on a definite number of houses for Scotland, it would be equally necessary to insist on a definite number of houses for several parts of England. An hon. Member suggested West Ham. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs did not even come in to protest against the comparison between Scotland and West Ham. We have heard of extinct volcanoes, but I do not think we have had such an instance of lions being turned into lambs.

Mr. FALCONER: I rise to support the Minister for Health. My reason for not liking this Amendment is that I think it would work out very badly for Scotland. I take that view very largely for the reason that the task of getting any good number of houses for Scotland within a reasonable time is a very much more serious one than it is for England. According to the inquiries which I have made, and everybody seems to be agreed, it is much more difficult to get labour and material, and therefore it will be much more difficult for Scotland, if a quota be given to her, to be able to complete them in the time. What will be the result if the Amendment be adopted? You would have a separate quota for Scotland. If Scotland failed to get the number, you might have the whole contributions from Scotland, as provided in the Clause, cancelled. Is that a condition which anyone desires to see. My right hon. Friend seems to assume that it is otherwise. It seems to me to be perfectly clear in the Bill and the Amend-
ment that if Scotland does not compete you must have the Scottish contribution cancelled

Captain ELLIOT: Not necessarily, It has got to be applied for by the Scottish Board of Health. It is a joint order made by the Scottish and English Ministers, and we have already passed words making it purely permissive. It is purely permissive at the will of the Scottish Minister.

Mr. FALCONER: It scorns to suggest to me that an order would be of no value whatever. I am not prepared to expose Scotland to the risk of being treated separately in this way. The other point to which I wish to refer is this. He seemed to think that under the Bill as it stands you might be in this position that all the houses for England would be built and none for Scotland, and Scotland would be bound to contribute to the houses for England. But suppose he got his quota for Scotland, Scotland would be in the same position. There is nothing in the Amendment which says that Scotland shall not contribute. From that point of view also—an important point of view I agree—the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member would be quite helpless so far as Scottish interests are concerned. I believe that the real interest of Scotland is that building should be a national concern, and I believe that Scotland will be better under an undivided number of houses than if she had a separate Bill.

Colonel GRETTON: This is an interesting position we have reached. I entirely agree that Scotland should have its proper quota. So ought England Apparently, this Amendment is a permissive one and leaves the Minister to make some unholy deal behind Parliament and behind the House of Commons as to what is to be the quota of Scotland and England. Is that a position in which we ought to leave this matter? I suggest that the Minister in this case is right in opposing this particular form of Amendment, and he is wrong in not taking care to secure that Scotland shall have her valid proportion of houses. The truth is that England, Wales and Scotland are very doubtful of the success of this Bill. The only chance the Minister has is to carry the whole thing forward in a kind of hotch-potch, no one knowing where
they are, listening to vague promises and his optimistic hopes that we shall get something out of the Bill and that houses will be built. I would suggest that there is another form of Amendment which might be made. What is required is a Bill for Scotland. Let us convert this Bill into a Bill for Scotland. We have already got one in England which is working very well, and perhaps the one now before the Committee would better suit Scotland. We in England at any rate do not care for it.

Mr. WHEATLEY: May I appeal to the Committee to allow a decision to be come to on this Amendment. It has been very fully discussed, and we have a lot more Amendments to deal with.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps I may be allowed to say one word with regard to the position which I, as an unfortunate Englishman, occupy in looking at this particular matter. I have not the honour to be a Scotsman or a Welshman. Hon. Members for Scottish constituencies above and below the Gangway, by their speeches on this Amendment, have shown that they are unanimously in favour of having a quota for Scotland and a corresponding quota for England, although it will make it a little more difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to get his Housing Bill through, for you might get more houses in Scotland overlapping the quota and a number in England below the proper minimum, or the case might be vice versa. At any rate, this Amendment does raise a point which must be decided at some time, and that is as to the proper relationship both in regard to finance and in regard to housing of England and Scotland under the provisions of the Bill. It is quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that the condition of Scotland, as far as housing is concerned, is much worse than the condition of England, and he might feel bound to build more houses in Scotland and fewer in England. Of course, it might be the other way, but I am out for fair play between the two countries, and I think that there should be something in the Bill to provide that Scotland should not be taxed for an inordinate number of houses being built in England, and should only be taxed if there were an overplus of houses built in Scotland. I am reminded
that this is the United Kingdom, but after the union, when we came to consider the financial relations between the two countries, we began to realise what Scotsmen were, and we found we had to be very careful to tie them up to ensure that they did not get more than their proper share of the plunder. If under this scheme a million houses were to be built in Scotland and 1,500,000 in England, that would be an impossible position from the financial point of view, and I do not think that even Scotsmen would approve of it. I hold, however, we should accept this Amendment in order to lay down the position that there must be a certain quota fixed and financial relations equalised between England and Scotland. Therefore, if my hon. and gallant Friend thinks fit to press this matter to a Division I shall support him, in view of the fact that the Minister of Health has not dealt with this question in his Bill, although it is a matter which must be dealt with sooner or later.

Sir BEDDOE REES: If there were the slightest chance of this Amendment being carried I should, as a Welsh Member, move that Wales be excluded from the Bill and that England should be left alone. We need houses in Wales as much as you do in Scotland, but I do not want to assert on behalf of Wales that our conditions are worse there than in Scotland; indeed, I would be ashamed if that were the case. But because the authorities in Wales have been more active and more progressive in this matter, that is no reason why Wales should suffer loss, or why Scotland should be given an undue advantage.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Ever since the first Housing Bill was introduced claims have been put forward on behalf of Scotland for full consideration in regard to housing, and for a considerable period of years the housing trouble has been very acute in Scotland, where they have had No Rent manifestoes and movements of that kind. In spite of the deficit of houses in Scotland the Members from Clydeside do not appear to have thought it necessary to be present to support this demand for a certain quota for Scotland. I think the housing question on the Clyde is a disgrace to everyone connected with it. There certainly ought to be some speeding up, and the Clyde Members ought to have made it their business to
be here and take part in this discussion and to see that their country gets its full share of advantage under this Bill. I certainly shall go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 231.

Division No. 173.]
AYES.
[7.25 p.m.


Atholl, Duchess of
Forestier-Walker, L.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Frece, Sir Walter de
Nichol, Robert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gates, Percy
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pease, William Edwin


Becker, Harry
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Gretton, Colonel John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Perring, William George


Berry, Sir George
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Betterton, Henry B.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Remer, J. R.


Blundell. F. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rentoul, G. S.


Bourne, Robert Croft
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harland, A.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Hartington, Marquess of
Ropner, Major L.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harvey, C. M. B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burman, J. B.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
Savery, S. S.


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Somerville, A. A.(Windsor)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Stanley, Lord


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Steel, Samuel Strang


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland, Northn.)
Stuart, Hon. J.(Moray and Nairn)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hughes, Collingwood
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Clarry, Reginald George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Clayton, G. C.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Jephcott, A. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cope, Major William
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Warrender, Sir Victor


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lamb, J. Q.
Wells, S. R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lane-Fox, George R.
Weston, John Wakefield


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Lumley, L. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacDonald, R.
wise, sir Fredric


Deans, Richard Storry
McLean, Major A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Elliot, Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.



Elveden, Viscount
Meller, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Falle. Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry


Ferguson, H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Barnston.


FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Burnle, Major J. (Bootle
)
Dunn, J. Freeman


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Alden, Percy
Cape, Thomas
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillisbro')
Chapple, Dr. William A.
Egan, W. H.


Alstead, R.
Charleton, H. C.
Falconer, J.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Church, Major A. G.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L


Ayles, W. H.
Clarke, A.
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.


Baker, Walter
Climie, R.
Franklin, L. B.


Banton, G.
Cluse, W. S.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Comyns-Carr, A. S.
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)


Batey, Joseph
Costello, L. W. J.
Gilbert, James Daniel


Birkett, W. N.
Cove, W. G.
Gillett, George M.


Black, J. W.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gosling, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Crittall, V. G.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)


Bonwick, A.
Darbishire, C. W.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)


Briant, Frank
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Greenall, T.


Bromfield, William
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Dickson, T.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dodds, S. R.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Brunner, Sir J.
Dukes, C.
Groves, T.


Buckle, J.
Duncan, C.
Grundy, T. W.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Maden, H.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
March, S.
Snell, Harry


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marley, James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Klnc'dine,E.)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Hardie, George D.
Maxton, James
Spence, R.


Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Harris, Percy A.
Middleton, G.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Millar, J. D.
Starmer, Sir Charles


Haycock, A. W.
Mitchell, R. M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Stephen, Campbell


Hayday, Arthur
Mond, H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hayes, John Henry
Montague, Frederick
Stranger, Innes Harold


Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Morel, E. D.
Sullivan, J.


Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex,Enfield)
Morris, R. H.
Sunlight, J.


Hillary, A. E.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Terrington, Lady


Hindle, F.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hirst, G. H.
Muir, John W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Hobhouse, A. L.
Murray, Robert
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hodges, Frank
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtle, E.


Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Nichol, Robert
Tinker, John Joseph


Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Oliver, George Harold
Toole, J.


Hudson, J. H.
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Owen, Major G.
Turner, Ben


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Paling, W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Palmer, E. T.
Varley, Frank B.


Jewson, Dorothea
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Viant, S. P.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Perry, S. F.
Vivian, H.


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wailhead, Richard C.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Phillipps, Vivian
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Potts, John S.
Warne, G. H.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pringle, W. M. R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Purcell, A. A.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F.W. (Bradford, E.)
Raffan, P. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Raffety, F. W.
Welsh. J. C.


Kedward, R. M.
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Westwood, J.


Kenyon, Barnet
Rea, W. Russell
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Kirkwood, D.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
White, H, G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Richards, R.
Whiteley, W.


Lansbury, George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wignall, James


Laverack, F. J.
Ritson, J.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Law, A.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Williams, Dr J. H. (Llanelly)


Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Lawson, John James
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B.(Kennington)


Leach, W.
Romeril, H. G.
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent,Sevenoaks)


Lessing, E.
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Linfield, F. C.
Scurr, John
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Livingstone, A. M.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Loverseed, J. F.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Windsor, Walter


Lunn, William
Sherwood, George Henry
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


McCrae, Sir George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wright, W.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Simon, E. D.(Manchester,Withington)
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


M'Entee, V. L.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)



Mackinder, W.
Smillie, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Alien


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Parkinson.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.




Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Sir G. McCRAE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, at the end, to insert the words
(b) if the Minister and Board are of opinion that adequate arrangements have not been made for the necessary supply of labour and materials at reasonable prices.
This Amendment is very witch in the same terms as the one that I moved earlier in the Debate. I only move it formally now so as to give the Minister an opportunity of saying, I understand, that he is going to accept it.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I want to ask the Committee to accept the Amendment which I have already read, with one or two verbal alterations: In page 5, line 42, at the end, to insert the words
Whether the deficiency is due to the absence of adequate arrangements for the necessary increase in the supply of labour
(including any necessary augmentation in the number of apprentices employed) or for the necessary increase in the supply of materials at reasonable prices or arising from any other cause whatsoever.

Sir G. McCRAE: I am quite willing to accept the Amendment suggested by the Minister, and I ask have to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, at the to insert the words
Whether the deficiency is due to the absence of adequate arrangements for the necessary increase in the supply of labour (including any necessary augmentation in the number of apprentices employed) or for the necessary increase in the supply of materials at reasonable prices or arising from any other cause whatsoever.

Mr. SUNLIGHT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to insert the words
or in the event of the cost of the houses to be built exceeding the cost prevailing in January, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, for similar houses.
I have already ventilated my point of view, and hope the Minister will accept my Amendment.

Viscount WOLMER: Why not include the size of bricks?

Mr. SUNLIGHT: I regard this as a very serious matter. Hon. Members have been discussing at great length the number of apprentices and the cost of materials on a certain date. The Minister has tried very hard to meet the difficulty, but I submit that in this Clause, which we ought not to leave to the, trade to fight out among themselves the cost of production, whether it be the question of materials or labour, we ought to lay upon them the responsibility to supply houses at a fixed price, based on prices ruling in Januaray, 1924.

Colonel GRETTON: On a point of Order. May I suggest that it is extremely inconvenient to the Committee to consider manuscript Amendments dealing with so many points as that which has been moved by the Minister, and then to be asked to consider a further manuscript Amendment, the effect of which the Committee cannot understand? May I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if any further Amendments of this manuscript kind could be considered at a later stage?

Sir B. REES: May I suggest that this matter be left over to the Report stage, to give us a chance of seeing exactly what the effect of these Amendments may be?

The CHAIRMAN: That is a suggestion which I was about to make.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I appeal to the hon. Member not to press his Amendment. It is not my duty to help the Minister, but the Minister has suggested a form of Amendment which has been accepted by all parties. We have been sitting for four hours, and we have not got through one Clause. There has been, I will not say a definite arrangement, but an understanding come to, through the usual channels, that we
should endeavour to complete the Committee stage of the Bill to-night. If we go on for a very long time, it means that we shall be sitting here until 2 or 3 o'clock to-morrow morning. I do hope, therefore, that hon. Members will not be too lengthy in their remarks and that they will not move unnecessary Amendments.

Sir G. McCRAE: I also make an appeal to my hon. Friend, under the circumstances, not to press his Amendment.

Mr. SUNLIGHT: Under the circumstances, I will not press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Revision of contributions.)

Sir C. COBB: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, after the word "such," to insert the words "local authorities and."
The Clause contemplates consultation with associations of local authorities. There are authorities which do not belong to associations. One instance is the London authority. The London authority was not summoned to the last conference with the Minister because he supposed that he was dealing only with associations of local authorities, and that all local authorities were included in the associations of local authorities. If the words "local authorities" were inserted it will be only a drafting Amendment, and it will ensure that any local authority which is not a member of an association of local authorities will also be summoned into consultation.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I think the form of words in which the hon. Member has put his Amendment hardly meets the point. I understand that he would be satisfied if the London County Council were called into consultation. Under this Amendment it would be necessary for the Minister of Health to call into consultation all local authorities, notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of them had already been represented through their various associations. I would ask the hon. Member whether he would put his Amendment in these words, in page 6, line 28, after the word "concerned," to
insert the words "and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to them to be desirable"?

Sir C. COBB: That brings in my point perfectly well. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 28, after the word "concerned," insert the words "and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to them to be desirable.''—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, to leave out the word "altering," and to insert instead thereof the word "reducing."
The answer given to the previous Amendment was that the Government were bound by certain agreements and arrangements made with various sections of the building trade, and the employers, and therefore could not alter the period of revision. It surely, therefore, is necessary to look very closely at the kind of revision that is going to be made. For instance, when the time for revision arrives the Minister may come and say, "We have been in negotiations with a powerful trade union combination and with employers, and we find that owing to the conditions imposed by labour demands wages are going up and employers are not in a position to carry out the undertakings. We have been obliged to give way to this kind of pressure, and we now come to the House of Commons to ask power to make a new agreement, to make a further contribution, either by increasing annual payment or making it for a longer period." That is a very wrong position for the House of Commons to be placed in.
Surely when a bargain has been made that certain work is to be done at a certain cost and contributions are to be paid at a certain rate for a certain period it would be wrong to leave it in the power of any Minister to come to the House and say. "Under pressure brought by outside bodies I have been obliged to alter these conditions, and I now ask the House to confirm the agreement which I have had to make," and the Minister would then explain what a splendid bargain he had made Though it is perfectly right, that where conditions have become
easier and houses can be more cheaply built, there should be a revision of conditions so that the State would bear less expense, it would be wrong to invite, as this word "altering" does, outside pressure to increase the contribution and impose a still further charge upon the State. It is true that orders so made will have to be laid on the Table of the House, but pressure of this kind would not be confined to a Minister, but would be applied to Members of all parties. Interested persons would come and say, "We have done the best we could, but circumstances are too strong for us. We have been obliged to go to the Minister. The Minister has met us fairly. We are very hard pressed and you must agree to the bargain which we have made." No Minister should be in a position to come to the House and ask for sanction to an increased charge being made on the public in such circumstances as these, and therefore I submit that this Amendment should be made.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: The Amendment seems to rest on the assumption that the contributions can be increased. The contributions in the Bill are the maximum contributions, and, so long as the Act operates, it will not be possible under the Act to get any larger contributions. The first period of revision will be three years hence, and if there be any alteration at all it must be a revision downwards, but, if the word "reducing" be inserted instead of the word "altering," then every successive revision must be downward, notwithstanding any changes that there might be in circumstances. If there were a redaction of contribution at the first triennial revision, and at a subsequent revision a very strong case were made out for an increase, that would not be possible if the Amendment were carried. If we are to proceed on the policy of allowing the £9 maximum, and that, whatever happens, that is not to be increased, we are entitled to ask that, within limits set by the Act, it should be possible in future, if circumstances so warrant, to raise the contribution to the limit for the succeeding three years. That may not be necessary, but should circumstances arise it would be a very serious thing that the whole scheme should come to an end merely because of one word in a Bill put in under what, I feel sure, is a misapprehension. Therefore I
hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment, if the hon. and gallant Member persists in it.

Lord E. PERCY: I am sure that the Committee has heard with astonishment the statement that it is the intention of this Clause that, in certain circumstances, the amount of the State contribution should be increased, not, it is true, above the £9 and the £6 limit, but that it should be increased. If the Parliamentary Secretary will look at the beginning of the Clause, he will see:
In the year 1927 and in any third succeeding year the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health shall take into consideration—
and so on. Are the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Board of Health to have power without reference to the Treasury, at the end of any particular triennial period, to impose a charge on the taxpayer without reference to any consideration connected with the forthcoming Budget? The idea is a constitutional absurdity. I am sure that the hon. Member cannot mean that the Government have deliberately put into the Bill a Clause which may have that effect.

Sir B. REES: If the hon. Member looks further down he will see
that the amounts and periods fixed by the order shall be such as may be approved by the Treasury and shall not exceed the respective amounts and periods fixed by the Housing, Etc., Act.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member is perfectly right in assuming that I had overlooked that, but that does not alter the main fact that it is extremely undesirable that Parliament should give to any Minister power to impose a charge without coming back to Parliament. This Clause involves no reference to Parliament. In those circumstances I think that my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment is perfectly justified.

Sir B. REES: I fail to connect the speech of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Gretton), who moved this Amendment, or what the Noble Lord (Lord E. Percy) has said with the Amendment itself. There is nothing in this Clause which will allow the Minister to increase the contributions beyond what is provided for in the Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to think
that the present Minister of Health, or some other Minister of Health three years' hence, will so get behind Parliament as to do something which this House could not have power to undo. This Clause merely gives the Minister the right to review the amount of the contribution every three years, and if there is any alteration in the amount of the contribution it must be downward for the first time. I agree that in the second period of revision there may be an additional sum given, but it can never go beyond the amount provided in the Act. Neither can it be contrary to the view of the Treasury, because the Treasury must approve of it, and the Resolution must be laid on the Table of the House of Commons. Therefore, I fail to see what justification there is for this Amendment.

Viscount WOLMER: I am very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Gretton) has raised this point. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bristol (Sir B. Rees). I do not think that the Treasury is any guarantee in this matter at all, because we hear constantly from hon. Members opposite that they must not be judged by their present performances, which I quite understand they are anxious to disclaim, but that we must wait until they have real power. When they get that real power we have no guarantee that the Treasury will not be entirely reconstituted by hon. Members opposite, and consist exclusively of members of the Fabian Society. Therefore the Treasury is no guarantee in this case. The Minister of Health is taking powers, in. conjunction with the Scottish Board of Health, to raise the amount which the State will have to contribute up to the limit fixed by this Act. The hon. Member for Bristol finds some satisfaction in that, but may I remind him that the limit fixed by this Act is a colossal figure considerably over £1,000,000,000. There was a day when the Liberal Party stood for peace, retrenchment and reform, but £1,000,000,000 appears to be a mere trifle to them nowadays. I think that it is very important that this question should be raised, and, while it is reasonable that the Minister should be given power at intervals to negotiate, he certainly ought not to have power to raise the rate of contributions without further. Parliamentary sanction.

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I point to the concluding words of the first paragraph of the section "unless Parliament otherwise determines." The hon. Member does not argue that Parliament should have no power to do anything.

8.0 P.M.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member has not read his own Bill. These words "unless Parliament otherwise determines" refer to the question of exceeding the limit placed by this Bill. That is no satisfaction to me at all, because the limit placed by this Bill is such a colossal figure, up to the £1,000,000,000 or £1,200,000,000 the Minister can do things off his own bat. Orders made under this Act will be subject only to the consent of the House of Commons, so that when we get to the halcyon days when hon. Members opposite have a majority, the House of Commons will be as subservient and as silent as hon. Members opposite now are in relation to their Front Bench, and when we have Scottish questions being discussed the Scottish Members will be out of the House, as they now are, instead of being in their places protesting vehemently. We have always been given to understand by hon. Members opposite that the cost of house-building under their scheme was going steadily down. "Give us a 15 years' programme," they said, "and these guarantees and the rest of it, and we can get it done on a great scale and the cost of building houses will be reduced." Now we have an admission from the Minister that the cost of building is not likely to be reduced, that it probably will go up, and that, therefore, he must take powers in order to pay more contributions from the State within the limits of the Act without coming specially to Parliament.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: We have had two most astonishing speeches. The Noble Lord has produced an argument against majority government, the like of which I have never heard before. Apparently a majority is all right if it consists of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is all wrong if it consists of hon. Gentlemen on this side. I do not think that the two Noble Lords who have spoken understand the purpose of the Amendment or the Clauses of the Bill. There is no question of the Minister, by
his own act, altering the rate of contribution without reference to anybody. It is perfectly clear that, before any Order is made by the Minister, the proposals shall be laid before the House of Commons. That surely is sufficient guarantee. I hope that Amendment will be with-drawn.

Colonel GRETTON: I am not going to put the House to the trouble of a Division, and hon. Members must negative my Amendment. The last speaker was playing with the question. He used no argument whatever. The charge, whether below the maximum charge or not, ought not to be increased without a special Vote of the House of Commons.

Amendment negatived

Mr. E. SIMON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 35, after the word "that," to insert the words
the grant payable by the local authority shall not exceed one-half of that payable by the Minister and that.
An Amendment having the same effect was moved by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) on Clause 3, and the Minister of Health asked him to withdraw it on the ground that it would he considered on Clause 5. This is an Amendment which provides that if there is a reduction, under this Clause, in the subsidy, then the share of the local authority shall be reduced in proportion. I do not know whether the words of my Amendment are satisfactory, and if they are not I do not insist on them, but I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of them.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to move the Amendment here, because his purpose could be served more appropriately later in the Clause. The Minister of Health has agreed to accept the principle of an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. That will meet the same point.

Mr. SIMON: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 41, at the end, to insert the words
in the case of hoagie; affected by any order made by the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health which decreases the amount
of the contributions payable or curtails the period for which such contributions are to be payable an amount equivalent to such proportion of the four pounds ten shillings a year payable for a period of forty years as the amount and period of the contributions when so decreased or curtailed bears to the amount and period of the contributions as fixed by this Act, and then in either case.
That carries out in substance the purport of the Amendment which has just been withdrawn.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: It is proposed to accept the principle of this Amendment by adopting rather fewer words. The Government's proposal is, in line 44, at the end, to insert the words
including the sum of four pounds ten shillings mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of this Act.
That would meet the hon. Member's point and would reduce the local contribution as the State contribution is reduced.

Mr. THOMSON: Does the hon. Gentleman say that in proportion as the £9 contribution from the State is reduced the £4 10s. from the local authorities will be reduced?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am advised that that is so.

Mr. THOMSON: In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 44, at the end, insert the words
including the sum of four pounds ten shillings mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section three of this Act."—(Mr. Greenwood.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T. THOMSON: Earlier in our discussion the Minister suggested that at the end of the period for revision it might be possible to reconsider the size of the houses. I have not put down an Amendment on the subject because I am anxious to get through the Committee stage. Between now and Report will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether in this Clause, when provision is made for the revision of contributions, he can put in words that will provide that a revision takes place, at the end of the three years, of the size of the houses?

Mr. E. SIMON: I wish to put another question, which has a very important bearing on a question put by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), namely, as to whether or not there is a treaty between the building trade and the Minister. In line 28 of this Clause it is stated that the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health may, if they think .it expedient, jointly make an order altering the amount of the contributions payable. What does that mean? The Clause starts by saying that they are to inquire into the cost of the past three years and the next three years. Apparently they are to have regard to these costs in making this reduction. I should like to know whether they can only make the reduction if the costs are reduced and if, therefore, the amount of the subsidy is not necessary or whether, on the other hand, the Minister is to be perfectly free regardless of cost to reduce the amount. In that case will it not be possible under this Clause, if the Minister thinks it expedient to reduce the amount, that he will be allowed to remove the subsidy altogether by reducing it to nothing? Therefore we wish to know whether the reading of the Clause is that the Minister may make any reduction he likes or whether he can only make a reduction in proportion to the reduction in building costs.

Mr. WHEATLEY: If I may answer the second question first, the understanding with the local authorities is that the reduction is to correspond to the fall in the cost of providing houses, not merely in the cost of the production of the house but the fall in the rate of interest. The present contributions remain as the basis of the agreement with the local authorities and will be subject to alteration only in so far as the circumstances alter. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) I have been legally advised that we can, at the end of three years, if we so desire, alter the size of the houses—that is, Parliament can do so—but it is felt expedient to put no words into the Bill to that effect.

Mr. PRINGLE: I understand the Minister to say that if at the end of three years it is desired to alter the size of the houses it would be necessary to come to Parliament to do so?

Mr. WHEATLEY: That is my information, but we will be coming to Parliament at the end of three years presumably with regard to the money provisions.

Mr. PRINGLE: My point is that you can deal with that matter by Order, whereas, if you propose to alter the size of the houses, you must have an Act of Parliament.

Mr. WHEATLEY: We require the consent of Parliament. May I remind the Committee of the principal difficulty in the way? It is my understanding with the local authorities. That understanding will cease to exist after three years' experience, and from that point we can start afresh.

Lord E. PERCY: Do I understand the Minister to agree that he will be able at the end of three years to vary the size of the houses by Order; that Order being passed by Parliament?

Mr. WHEATLEY: It must have the approval of Parliament.

Mr. PRINGLE: I think we ought to be quite clear about the question—whether this Bill which is carried under a Financial Resolution confining the size of the houses to the type under the 1923 Act, gives power to the Minister by administrative Order, even though such Order is confirmed by Parliament, to alter the size so laid down.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am advised that a. short Act of Parliament would be required for this purpose.

CLAUSE 6.—(Laying of Orders before Parliament.)

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move in page 7, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words "the Commons House," and to insert instead thereof the words "both Houses."
This Amendment is moved to provide that any Order made under this Measure shall be reviewable by both Houses, or rather that it shall require resolutions of both Houses before it come into force.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: On a point of Order. I understand these Orders deal entirely with finance, and I should like
to know whether, on constitutional grounds, we are entitled to insert in the Bill a provision that such an Order requires the consent of any body other than the House of Commons.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not pose as an authority on the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member, and I will allow the Minister an opportunity of saying something on the matter before I give a decision.

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) will wait for a moment, I intend to deal with that point. Let me say in the first place, in case the Minister objects to the form in which this Clause would be left by the inclusion of these words, that if the form proves inconvenient his legal advisers will provide him with a form of Clause to avoid any difficulty which might otherwise arise. On the main point it is perfectly true that this is called a Financial Provisions Bill. It is quite true that in form it does nothing more than increase a subsidy, but we have been told by the Government it is on that increase of subsidy that their whole housing policy is based. We have been told that their housing policy stands or falls by that increase in the amount of subsidy and that the housing needs of the nation can only be satisfied if this Bill is passed, and that any serious alteration would prevent the housing needs of the nation being met. We are asked to regard this Bill as the be-all and end-all of housing policy, and. therefore I think it is futile to say that it is merely a Financial Provisions Bill and that any Order made under it only requires the sanction of the House of Commons. We all know the procedure when we are dealing with a purely financial Bill and when Mr. Speaker has certified a Bill as a Money Bill. That certificate, I think, cannot be given until a. Bill is passed, and so it would be rather peculiar, if I may say so with great respect., to rule any such Amendment as this out of order, before a certificate has been given.
We agree that as in the case of the Safeguarding of Industries Act it might be possible to make Orders reviewable only by the House of Commons, but in the case of a Bill of this kind, on which the whole of a great department of social policy is based—if, indeed, the claim made
for the Bill is a sincere one that the housing policy of the nation is based upon it—then to exclude the Second Chamber from any part in future proceedings on the Bill at any time for the next 15 years would be a violation of the general constitutional procedure under which we are supposed to conduct our relations with the other House. As throwing a light upon that point, I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that we have just had a very brief discussion as to whether by any conceivable legal device the Minister could alter the size of the houses under this Bill without an Act of Parliament. Clearly, of course, if he were able by an Order reviewable by the House of Commons alone to reduce the size of the houses from 950 feet to 700 feet, it would be a hopeless position. The House of Lords should be given an opportunity for reviewing a decision of that kind. I understand now the Minister admits that was not the advice he was given. There is one very peculiar provision in Clause 5. It states that:
An Order under this Section may make such consequential alterations of any sums or periods mentioned in the financial provisions of the said Act or in this Act "—
that is, this Act as a whole.

Mr. PRINGLE: No.

Lord E. PERCY: Well, on the broadest grounds I say that this is not a mere Money Bill. If the claims made for this Bill are sincere, it cannot be a mere Money Bill, and if it is mere Money Bill, the claims made for this Bill are not sincere. Therefore, I consider that the House of Lords should have a power to review Orders made under the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I take particular interest in this Bill, not because I think it is a good Bill, but because I am sure that something definite ought to be done, and, therefore, anyone who attempts to do anything in this matter of housing will get my support. On this point as to whether or not an Order should be confirmed, I have read the Bill right through time after time, till I am nearly sick of it, and I have never found half a dozen words in the Bill, unless it be in the Clause defining whether an area is a rural or an urban area, that do not deal with money, how it shall be spent, how it shall
be allocated, or who shall have the right to vary it, and the only thing on which the Minister is allowed to make an Order is as to how money shall be levied or to whom it shall be paid. Even in a Finance Bill itself, there are Clauses that apparently are more social than financial, and you often get in a Finance Bill Clauses that are not strictly dealing with finance, but in this Bill there is not a Clause that does not deal with money in almost every line, and therefore I suggest that when Orders can be made relating only to money, the levying of money upon the subject, or to whom the money shall be paid, when a Bill is so exclusively a Money Bill as is this Bill, certainly the House of Commons is the authority to say whether or not an Order should go forth.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: The question before the Committee is not the wide and general question as to whether this is or is not a Money Bill, but as to whether Orders made by the Minister shall be approved by both Houses of Parliament instead of by this House alone. Those Orders are of two kinds—Orders to bring the Government's liability to an end, set out under Clause 4, and Orders, under Clause 5, relating to the revision of contributions. Orders of these kinds are both of them Orders affecting finance provided out of moneys found by this House, and I should have thought., therefore, that this Committee would take a very firm line on the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). One can realise the very important considerations arising. Suppose the Minister and the House decided at the end of three years that the scheme should not terminate, or that there should be a revision of contributions, and the House of Lords were to disagree and not pass a Resolution. That would mean that Government money, money which Parliament would be prepared to devote to this service, could not be spent, and that the housing scheme would virtually be vetoed by Members in another place, and although it is not for me to pronounce as to whether or not this is a Money Bill, I urge the Committee to reject this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(Minor Amendments.)

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, after the word "of," to insert the words
The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, and.
Some considerable doubt has arisen on the part of various local authorities as to how far the Minister proposes to interfere with the rights given them under the 1919 Act. I do not think anyone suggests that the recalcitrant authority or one that is lax in putting its powers into force should be protected, but insofar as this Bill makes provision for the waiving of the building of houses owing to excessive cost and other reasonable grounds, the local authorities are anxious to know whether they are clearly protected against the authority of the Minister in compelling them, under any circumstances, to go on with their schemes. Can the Minister, therefore, assure the Committee on that particular point?

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member is doubtless aware that there is a proposed new Clause appearing later on the Paper, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Captain Elliot), not exactly in a form which we should be prepared to accept, which would meet the point raised. There never was, of course, any suggestion that local authorities, which have never expressed any desire to build houses and have not put forward a building programme, should be released from every obligation. That was never suggested by the Municipal Corporations Association, but the particular claims of the local authorities which are referred to can be met, in a manner of which I am certain the hon. Member will approve, when we come to the later proposal.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), although he usually- explains his Amendments elaborately, has not explained this Amendment, and I should have thought there was something more in this matter than he brought out. I may have made a mistake, but I understand that he wishes to insert something with reference to the Town Planning Act, se that that Act shall not be entirely lost sight of. Even if a local authority does not think it its duty to carry out the wishes of the Department, at the same time the planning of a town or a district
should certainly be maintained, if possible. We have got quite enough slums being added by the schemes which have been put into operation during the last four or five years, and we do not want any more. We do not want to give either the local authorities, or the Minister, or his Department, power to abrogate successful arrangements, and especially schemes for the development of towns and districts, thought out many years ago by competent men. If the stress of present-day affairs should lead us to abrogate those schemes, we might regret it hereafter.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I am sorry that, in my desire to save the time of the Committee, I was not as explicit as the hon. and gallant Member desired. There was no wish at all on my part to suggest that any of the duties resting upon local authorities with regard to town planning should be in any way abrogated. I am glad of the assurance that the Parliamentary Secretary gave. I do not know whether it is out of order to ask him in what particular form the Government propose to deal with this question. If he could indicate that, I should be the more prepared to withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Later on the Paper, a new Clause appears in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Captain Elliot), and the Minister is prepared at a later stage to insert an Amendment in somewhat similar terms to allow, in reasonable circumstances, the local authorities discretion with regard to building or not building, provided however that local authorities who do not promote building schemes, or who under the 1919 Act are declared in default, shall not be able to ride off by any Amendment under this Bill, and he enabled to get out of their responsibilities. Here are the words which we propose to insert at a later stage:
The local authority, in carrying out any proposal for the purpose of this Act, shall have power to determine the number of houses which they will build in any particular period. subject to the importation of a maximum limit by the Minister, and should the local authority find it necessary to suspend building operations on the ground of excessive cost, or on any other reasonable ground, the suspension shall not be treated as a failure on the part of the local authority to fulfil their obligations as to the preparation of schemes under the Housing Acts, or their obligations under any such scheme.
In view of that, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. THOMSON: That fully protects the position of local authorities in this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Application to Scotland.)

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I beg to move, in page 7, line 34, to leave out the word "any," and to insert instead thereof the words "a landward."
The object of my Amendment is to make a point clear with regard to a difficulty that may arise as the Clause stands. It is not intended that the increased subsidy of £12 10s. should be payable in respect of houses erected within a. burgh, and this has been made abundantly clear to all local authorities. Accordingly, as a rural area never includes a burgh, the expression "any parish" at the beginning of paragraph (a) means only a landward parish (that is, a parish which does not include a burgh). The paragraph goes on to refer to the parish which is partly burghal and partly landward, and provides for the landward part being, if qualified, a rural area. As the Clause at present stands, it might be argued that it included the whole of a parish which comprised a small burgh, the valuation and population of which were so small as not to exclude it under the conditions set out in (i) and (ii) of this paragraph, and, therefore, in that special case it included the small burgh. This is not the intention, and this Amendment is designed to make the position clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 7, line 41, after the first "the," to insert the word "landward."

Mr. PRINGLE: Before going further, I should be interested to know whether the effect of the Amendment, and that of its predecessor, is to give Scotland, with regard to rural parishes, better treatment than England. In the case of an English parish the borough would be added with the rest of the parish, but, so far as Scotland is concerned, the burgh is excluded, so that in Scotland
a larger number of parishes will come within the definition of agricultural parishes, for the purpose of receiving a larger subsidy, than in England.

Mr. ADAMSON: These two Amendments put Scotland in exactly the same position as England.

Mr. PRINGLE: I would ask the Minister of Health whether it is so. In the Bill, as far as it affects England, the sole question is the valuation and the population. Two tests are laid down.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Ask an Englishman!

Mr. PRINGLE: I am an English Member, and I do not wish to see any injustice shown to England. It is because I also appreciate the Scottish position, and in that I share an advantage with the Minister of Health, though he is really a trustee for England in this matter, and, obviously, must see that no injustice is done to the country for which he is mainly responsible in this House. I could give an example in Scotland for which there is no similar provision made in England. If you take a parish like Lauder, in the County of Berwick, an ancient Royal burgh, which would be reckoned a village in England, under this Amendment, as I understand for the purpose of settling whether that parish should be treated as an agricultural parish for the purpose of an increased subsidy, the whole of Lauder is excluded. There are no cases where you have such a thing arising in England as a borough being excluded from the agricultural parish so as to enable that parish to qualify for the increased subsidy.

Mr. E. BROWN: I take some little interest in this matter and, therefore, I am able to add a word or two to that which has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). Whatever may be said as to the right of England, I have no wish to stand in the way of Scotland getting this reform, but I could give an illustration which perhaps the House may consider interesting. I know a place called Milton, which is very largely agricultural, but has an urban population of 6,000 in the village. If we had some arrangement such as is here proposed in relation to the agricultural part of the village of Milton, the area and population could be so
arranged that many agricultural labourers in the village would be able to get the advantage of the £12 10s. who do not get that advantage now. However, I do not wish to press the objection because those in Scotland get this advantage.

Mr. WHEATLEY: May I tell the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), that, as trustee in this House for England and Wales, if the acceptance of this Amendment places Scotland in an advantageous position I will see that on the Report stage the matter is rectified.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 7, line 43, to leave out the words "for the year immediately preceding," and insert instead thereof the words "then in force."
This is a Scottish point. The object of this Amendment is to ascertain whether the area is a rural area from the last available valuation roll. As the Clause stands in the Bill, the matter is to be determined according to an earlier part of the Clause, "at the beginning of the financial year in which the proposal for the provision of the house is approved by the Board under Section 22 of the Interpretation Act; the first day of April." The valuation roll for this current year, from 15th of May of the preceding to the 15th of May of that year, will be available so that there is, therefore, no need to refer to the valuation roll of the immediately preceding year.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 45, after the word "the" insert the word "landward."—[Mr. Adamson.]

The CHAIRMAN: I next call upon Mr. Adamson for his further Amendment.

Duchess of ATHOLL: On a point of Order. May I ask why you have not accepted the Amendment standing in my name and that of my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Bourne), in page 8, line 2—after the word "be," to insert the words
Provided that in computing the proportion of agricultural land in a rural area the valuation of sporting rents shall ho included as part of the value of agricultural land, but railroads, water or electrical works and Undertakings, or institutions erected for the
public service and conferring no special advantage on the parish concerned, shall not be included in the total valuation of the rural area for the purposes of these provisions.

The CHAIRMAN: I am only using the power of selection of Amendments which I have.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I point out that my Amendment, if it coincide to some extent with those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. E. Brown), differs in sortie very important particulars. The Committee, I submit, has not had any opportunity of realising in what important particulars this Clause, which applies to Scotland, differs from the others. It. is a very important Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we cannot now go into that. As I have already said, it is part of my duty to select Amendments.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I shall raise the matter on Report.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 3, after the second word "the," insert the word "landward."—[Mr. Adamson.]

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 8, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the word "thirty-five," and to insert instead thereof the word "fifty."
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment made by the Committee in Clause 2, Sub-section (2, b), as applying to England, in regard to the definition of an agricultural parish.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. E. Brown) dealt with the matter involved in this Amendment for, and it raises a very important question in regard to, the greater need of Scottish local areas to have an extended application of the actual population of 100 acres. I was rather surprised at the right hon. Gentleman himself, knowing his interest in Scottish affairs, did not think fit to draw attention to this aspect of the matter, particularly in view of the fact that we have had a Royal Commission on Housing which has drawn attention to the most unsatisfactory condition of rural housing. I should like to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that this point will be dealt with at a later stage, and that he will
see that the extended facilities for village rural areas in Scotland will be more complete and clear. After a proper survey of housing needs is made, the Minister of Health for Scotland will be asked to apply his mind to the greater needs of these areas.

Mr. ADAMSON: I should like to assure my hon. Friends that due attention will be given to that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the. Bill."

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to draw the attention of the Minister and the Committee to one or two important points in which this Clause differs from the Clause which gives a definition of an agricultural parish in England. There are two points at least. For the words "agricultural parish" are substituted the words "rural area," and the calculation to be made, as stated by the Secretary for Scotland in an answer given the other day, is to be on the gross valuation and not on the net valuation. I submit to the Committee that both these points have a very important hewing on this Clause, and it is only right to bring them before the Committee, the more so because I understand the right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he would be ready to consider whether any form of property institution, or otherwise might be treated as an exception. I will deal first with this question of gross valuation as opposed to net valuation. I want to point out how inequitably this Clause may affect rural parishes in Scotland, and this was brought out forcibly in an answer given by the Secretary for Scotland to a question which I put to him as to what villages in the counties of Kinross and Perth would be eligible for the larger grant. In answer to my question I was told that all the parishes in those two counties would be eligible except nine which he enumerated, and they included eight typical rural parishes, some of them mainly agricultural; others were partly agricultural and largely moorland. They were typical rural parishes, and it was with amazement that I learned that they would not benefit by the higher grant. The first point that emerged was
that the inclusion of the valuation of railways in the calculation to be made would be to the prejudice of many rural areas. I think that point was made last week.
In the Amendment which I was not allowed to move I proposed that railroads, water or electrical works, and undertakings or institutions erected for the public service and conferring no special advantage on the parish concerned, should not be included in the total valuation. The possession of a station in an agricultural parish may increase the agricultural valuation, but when there is no station in the parish, or none easily accessible in another, there is no such increase; and the inclusion of railroads may prevent that parish from receiving the higher grant. And even more than the question of the exclusion of railroads from the calculation, I hope the Minister will seriously consider the question of the exclusion of waterworks. In the case of those parishes which I was told would not benefit by the higher grant in four of them the loss will be entirely duo to the presence of waterworks.
9.0 P.M.
Take, for example, the parish of Amgark. The total valuation is £17,870, the agricultural valuation £3,900, and the valuation of the waterworks is £9,000. The presence of the .waterworks there excludes a typical rural parish. In the parish of Glendevon the total valuation is £11,400, the agricultural value £2,600, and the valuation of the waterworks is about £8,000. In the parish of Aberfoyle the total valuation is £38,600, agricultural valuation £1,593, and the waterworks valuation is £28,000. In the landward parish of Callender we have the same story. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to seriously bear in mind that it cannot be held that the presence of waterworks will send up the value of other subjects in the parish—that if you have waterworks within a parish the presence of these waterworks in no way changes the character of the parish or adds to the value of other subjects. It may mean the presence of a few additional persons, but that is only a trifling addition to the value of the parish, and the presence of waterworks does not deprive the parish of its rural character, although it enormously increases the gross valuation.
The Minister for Health sits for a Scottish constituency, and I think there is a consideration which he should not forget, and it is that there are many Scottish rural parishes which have already been severely penalised by the presence of waterworks in their midst. If the right hon. Gentleman has read, as no doubt he has, the Report of the Committee on Local Taxation, issued two years ago, he will remember the striking instances given of how under the present system, by which educational expenditure to be borne by each parish is calculated on the gross valuation, the presence of waterworks with a high gross valuation has increased the educational expenditure to be met by that parish. Then a considerable deduction is made off the waterworks, which means that those who have to pay on the other subjects are left with an additional burden. That was clearly pointed out by the Dunedin Committee, and it is a consideration which no one can afford to overlook, because this system severely penalises a number of our rural parishes.
If the right hon. Gentleman has much knowledge of life in the rural parishes in Scotland he will perhaps know that sometimes a great city some 30, 40 or 50 miles away requires more water, and wishes to take it from a certain loch, and the people in those parishes are not always too anxious to see the water taken away, because it often means the spoiling of some rural amenities or scenery. if this Clause passes as it stands, it will not be made easier for the cities of Scotland to get the water they need from the rural areas, because those areas will be conscious that they may be heavily penalised by the presence of those waterworks. It is because I recognise the needs of great cities, and because I wish to see rural districts do their best to meet the needs of those cities that I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider most carefully whether he will not exclude waterworks, and make his calculation on the net valuation.
I also wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that in this Clause he says that the designation of the area is to be altered from the somewhat narrow definition in the
English part of the Bill "agricultural parish" to the wider term "rural area." Yet he still proposes to limit the basis on which the character of the area is defined by only allowing the agricultural valuation to reckon towards the grant. There are many parishes in Scotland which are typically rural. One could not imagine, for instance, any parish more typically rural than Killin, which is to be excluded from this grant, and there are many such parishes which, unless the sporting valuation is allowed to be counted with the agricultural valuation, will find it impossible to qualify for the higher grant. There are a good many parishes in the Highlands that will qualify for the grant owing to a later Clause, which provides that the parishes which benefit by the Highlands and Islands grant shall rank for the larger grant, but there are a good many other parishes, typically rural and typically Highland in character, which are not included in the area that benefits by that Act, and those parishes will suffer severely unless the sporting valuation may be counted.
I do nor wish to claim for sporting values that they should be regarded as being anything so important to the country as is agriculture, but I do say that, where you have land such as is described in the Report of the Committee on Deer Forests, one may be thankful that these very poor areas in Scotland have a certain value for sporting purposes, and those who are responsible for raising rats in those areas know well the value of sporting subjects there. I want just to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the sporting subjects have an important connection with the agricultural subjects. In the first place, if it were not for the keepers who work in these sporting areas—grouse moors and deer forests—agriculture in the surrounding country would suffer severely from foxes and other vermin. A great part of the time of the gamekeepers is spent in protecting the land of the neighbouring farmers and smallholders from the ravages of foxes, rabbits and so on. I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that, if a deer forest is unlet, it is rated as sheep grazing. Therefore, whatever his opinion may be as to the
value, from a national point of view, of these sporting subjects, I submit that, as to their value from the rating point of view, there can be no question. Whatever may be the right hon. Gentleman's views as to the general question of sport, I would ask him to remember that it has a very important bearing in its relation to agriculture, and, most unquestionably, if he continues to omit from this Clause all mention of sporting value, he will make it impossible for many typical rural parishes in the Highlands of Scotland to qualify for the higher grant.
I do not want the right bon. Gentleman to make the meshes of his net too close; I do not want him to throw the doors open too wide, so that he upsets the finance of his Bill; but I do want to say to him that we want equity and fair dealing as between different rural parishes. If the right hon. Gentleman feels able to adopt any of the suggestions I have made in regard to this Clause—they would, I admit, if the basis otherwise remained the same, mean a considerable addition to the number of parishes that would rank for the higher grant—I fully admit the necessity of requiring the combined agricultural and sporting valuation to bear a higher proportion of the total than is proposed in the Bill; but what I do ask for is fair dealing between rural parish and agricultural parish, and that is what, I submit, we have not got under this Clause as it stands. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot, between now and the Report stage, see his way to do anything more in the direction suggested by myself and by the lion. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. E. Brown) last week, I assure him that there is bound to be a great deal of heartburning and sense of injustice as between neighbouring rural parishes, and that it will make it extremely difficult for district committees to do what we all wish to see them do, and that is to build as many houses as possible under this Bill.

Mr. ADAMSON: I can assure the Noble Lady that I have no desire to draw invidious distinctions between one parish and another. Moreover, there is another side to the picture which the Noble Lady so eloquently put before the Committee While she pointed out that these waterworks largely increase the valuation of a number of our rural parishes, she forgot to point out at the same time that rates
are paid by these waterworks, and that—

Duchess of ATHOLL: If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, I did not deny that they paid rates. What I said was that the deduction usually made in the case of waterworks was considerably larger than the deductions made in the case of other subjects in the parish.

Mr. ADAMSON: I was pointing out that these waterworks all pay rates—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not to the parish!"]—for which they get no benefit. For instance, they get no benefit from education.

Duchess of ATH0LL: If the presence is required of persons to look after the waterworks—and I expressly admitted that these persons and their houses would add to the value of the parish—schools have to be provided for their children.

Mr. ADAMSON: The occupant of the house pays his rates as an ordinary ratepayer, and is entitled to education for his children, but I am pointing out that these waterworks do not require any expenditure so far as education is concerned. They pay teind, and they do not get any spiritual benefit. As a matter of fact, these waterworks only get the privilege of paying the rates, and they reduce to a considerable extent the amount of rates that the landlord would require to pay in these parishes.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am very sorry to interrupt again, but that really is too important a point to allow to pass. The Dunedin Committee clearly showed how the other ratepayers in the parishes were penalised by the presence of the waterworks, because its gross valuation was so much larger than its net valuation.

Mr. ADAMSON: I want to point out, in addition to what I have already said, that a very large proportion of the parishes in Scotland are included and a very small proportion excluded. Out of 869 parishes in Scotland, 714 will be eligible for the £12 10s. That is a very large proportion. Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has already said that he is prepared to consider what further concessions can be given under this Clause. I want to say quite frankly that, when that consideration is being given, I shall take care that Scotland secures her share. I do not think the Noble Lady need have so much
fear as she evidently has as to the rural parishes suffering so seriously.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Might I just point out that this is not a question of Scotland suffering, but a question of justice as between the agricultural parish and the rural area?

Mr. PRINGLE: A very important point has arisen in this discussion, not solely as regards Scotland, because I understand that there is in contemplation by the Government some further concession which will apply both to Scotland and to England.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Consideration.

Mr. PRINGLE: The Minister says that it is only consideration, which, obviously, is intended to give rather cold comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. E. Brown) and to the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). Apparently the consideration is not going to lead to anything substantial. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. E. Brown) gave way when he was told it was only to be consideration, because as I understand it, if any concession is made it will be an alteration of the financial provisions of the Bill and it will be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to re-commit the Bill in order to make the concession.

Captain ELLIOT: May we have this definitely settled, whether it is necessary to re-commit the Bill for further consideration?

Mr. WHEATLEY: It is not necessary to re-commit the Bill in order to enable me to carry out my promise.

Captain ELLIOT: We shall not carry out our previous intention of dividing against the Clause in consideration of the statement made by the Secretary for Scotland, but I warn him that, in view of the very casual treatment which he has meted out to Scotland, both in regard to the quota and in regard to the very germane points raised by the Noble Lady, we shall scrutinise very closely the suggested Amendment which he brings forward on Report, and if we do not get satisfaction we shall have no hesitation whatever in dividing against the proposal that the Clause shall apply to Scotland.

Mr. E. BROWN: I rise because the matter concerns me rather intimately. I asked leave to withdraw my Amendment, and, indeed, voted against my own Amendment, on hearing the following statement, which led me to believe it was rather more than a consideration.
You must accept some basis, and if you do, you will always have bard cases. I want the Committee to be reasonable in this matter. If there is any particular kind of institution, which would not lead us, say, from an asylum to a hospital or from a prison to some other institution, and so on, which can be excluded without creating any of these administrative difficulties, and which would bring relief to particular parishes or to parishes generally, then I will consider whether that institution, if we can find it, can be dealt with on the Report stage. I think that that is as far as the Committee might reasonably ask me to go.
Then I said:
There is a slight difference in this case. This is not the ease of individual hardship. The question of railways is universal in its application throughout the country. It cuts out innumerable little hamlets.
The Minister replied:
If I said that I would take railways, would I not have immediately the advocates of some other form of property. [HON.MEMBER: 'No!'] I have said that I will ascertain whether there is any form of property, institution or otherwise, which I could, without raising administrative difficulties, treat as an additional conceasion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1924; col. 514, Vol. 176.]
On that, I withdrew my Amendment, and indeed voted against it. I suggest to the Committee that that statement made to me implied more than consideration of the points raised. They implied dealing with the points. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister himself has to say on this point.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I can only assure the hon. Member that I considered the matter in the spirit in which I made that promise.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he definitely intends to put down an Amendment covering the. points of railways and waterworks, because, if not, there is bound to be misunderstanding when we reach the Report stage. We have what is rather more than an promise of mere consideration by Departments and something less than a specific undertaking to bring forward some Amendment, so that all bona fide agricultural truly rural, parishes shall get the benefit.
I have had the same difficulty with private Bills upstairs—the Thames Conservancy Bill the other day, for instance—about which parishes are really agricultural and which are not, which are to contribute and which are not. I really think before passing this Clause we ought to get a definite undertaking from the Secretary for Scotland or the Minister of Health that he will bring forward the necessary Amendment to make the substance of the arguments used on both sides of the House good and substantial.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not know that I can add anything to what I have said. If I find something that I can concede, obviously I shall put it in the form of an Amendment. I cannot at this stage go further than that, but I stand to what I said and to the spirit in which I gave that promise.

Mr. PRINGLE: The spirit of the Minister of Health is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the spirit of the Secretary for Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland referred to the fact that waterworks derive no spiritual benefit. Consequently we are rather led to investigate the spiritual condition of the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary for Scotland has argued quite definitely that it was perfectly fair to include the various subjects mentioned by the Noble Lady. He said it was fair that waterworks, railways and so forth should be included in the valuation. That is quite different from the spirit of the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health said in his speech on the. Committee stage that all these cases would be considered. Now the Secretary for Scotland, apparently having considered them, rules them all out. He says the other ratepayers benefit by these things being in their midst and that they are relieved in regard to education. I am surprised to hear him say that about education. I understand that in Scotland the education rate is on a parish basis and not on the county basis. I have reason to remember that, because when the Education Bill was going through Committee I moved an Amendment and was defeated by a majority of one owing to the influence of Lord Younger, which will please the Noble Lady who desired to protect the railways. I think these facts rather show that the right hon. Gentleman is not quite right
in his facts. These subjects are not specially for the benefit of the rural areas insofar as the rates are levied on a parish basis. In these circumstances I think the subjects mentioned in the Noble Lady's Amendment have the same principle applicable to them as the subject the hon. Member for Rugby had in view. Some time has passed since the discussion of my hon. Friend's Amendment. We are led to believe the Report stage is coming on Thursday, and apparently, while the Minister of Health is still considering what he is going to do, the Secretary for Scotland has absolutely made up his mind. I think it is very important that before we leave this Clause we should know which of them is going to settle the matter, whether it is the hard-hearted Secretary for Scotland, whose views are entirely determined by the absence of spiritual benefit to the waterworks, or the Minister of Health. Could not the right hon. Gentleman give us some guidance before we part from the Clause? I have no doubt it would facilitate the further progress of the Bill if some statement could be made as to the direction in which the mind of the Government, so far as it has a mind, or the two minds of the Government., so far as they have two minds, are working.

Captain ELLIOT: The Secretary for Scotland said we were to be considered in the same way as England. Then the Minister of Health made a pronouncement, saying, "If I find I can concede anything, I will put it down in an Amendment." That does not seem to me really to me a promise that commits the right hon. Gentleman very far. In fact, I do not see what it, is going to do at all. [HON. MEMBER: "Divide!"] I do not see how to avoid it, because the right hon. Gentleman says, "If I can think of anything between now and Thursday, I will put it down.'' This is Tuesday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Monday."]Well it will soon be Tuesday. Really we have had so much experience doming the passage of this Bill of manuscript Amendments put down covering very important points. It has been all right on the Committee stage, because we could see them on Report. Now we may have a very long, complicated and involved manuscript Amendment put down on Report, and it will be impossible for us to examine it. We shall have to press this Amendment to a Division.

Mr. MASTERMAN: There might be something to be said for pressing the Amendment, which was not permitted, of the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl) to a Division. The Amendment my hon. Friend now wishes to press to a Division it to reject the whole Clause making the Bill not apply to Scotland. The Committee will know what it is doing. It does not produce any exemption of waterworks, or anything of that sort. It simply takes Scotland out of the Bill. Those voting for that know what they are doing. I am willing at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. E Brown) was, to take into account, not caring in the least what, happens to the remoter regions of Scotland, but thinking of the English rural parishes, the promise made by the Minister of Health on the Committee stage in the

spirit in which he gave it. He declared that, if there could be any means of making these rural areas really rural, and taking out lunatic asylums, inebriate homes, railways and other institutions, he would do his best to do it. If he does not do it, we can still defeat him on the Report stage, and certainly most of us are quite prepared to do so We accept his promise provisionally, in the hope and knowledge that he is going to do his best. It is under those circumstances, and with the belief that whatever the Secretary for Scotland says and believes, our faith is pinned to the Minister of Health, and I would invite my hon. Friend not to interfere in this Scottish matter, and not to vote for the rejection of the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 229 Noes, 104.

Division No. 174.]
AYES.
[9.29 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Ferguson, H.
Jones, T, I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Finney, V. H.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)


Alden, Percy
Franklin, L. B.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Kedward, R. M.


Alstead, R.
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet


Aske, Sir Robert William
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Kirkwood, D.


Ayles, W. H.
Gibbins, Joseph
Lansbury, George


Baker, Walter
Gillett, George M.
Laverack, F. J.


Banton, G.
Gosling, Harry
Law, A.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawson, John James


Batey, Joseph
Graham, W. [Edinburgh, Central)
Leach, W


Birkett, W. N.
Greenall, T.
Lessing, E.


Black, J. w.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Linfield, F. C.


Bondfield, Margaret
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Livingstone, A. M.


Bonwick, A.
Grigg, Lieut-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
Loverseed, J. f.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Groves, T.
Lowth, T


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William


Briant, Frank
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
McCrae, Sir George


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hardie, George D.
M'Entee, V. L.


Brunner, Sir J.
Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Mackinder, W.


Buckle, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Haycock, A. W.
Macpherson Rt Hon. James I.


Cape, Thomas
Hayday, Arthur
Maden, H.


Church, Major A. G.
Hayes, John Henry
March, S.


Clarke, A.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Marley, James


Climie, R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Klnc'dine,E.)


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex,Enfield)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Hillary, A. E.
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.


Cove, W. G.
Hindle, F.
Maxton, James


Crittall, V. G.
Hirst, G. H.
Meyler, Lieut-Colonel H. M.


Darbishire, C. W.
Hodges, Frank
Middleton, G.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hoffman, P. C.
Millar, J. D.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Mitchell,R.M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Montague, Frederick


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Morel, E. D.


Dickson, T.
Hudson, J. H.
Morris, R. H.


Dodds, S. R.
Isaacs, G. A.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Dukes, C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Muir, John W.


Duncan, C.
Jewson, Dorothea
Murray, Robert


Dunn, J. Freeman
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Murrell. Frank


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Naylor, T. E.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Nichol, Robert


Egan, W. H.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
O'Grady, Captain James


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Oliver, George Harold


England, Colonel A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)


Owen, Major G.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Paling, W.
Simon, E. D.(Manchester,Withington)
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Palmer, E. T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Warne, G. H.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wiqan)
Smillie, Robert
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Phillipps, Vivian
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Welsh, J. C.


Potts, John S.
Snell, Harry
Westwood, J.


Pringle, W. M. R.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Purcell, A. A.
Spence, R.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Raffan, P. W.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Whiteley, W.


Raffety, F. W.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Wignall, James


Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Spero, Dr. G. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Rathbone, Hugh R.
Starmer, Sir Charles
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Rea, W. Russell
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams, Lt.-Col.T.S.B.(Kennington)


Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stranger, Innes Harold
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)


Richards, R.
Sullivan, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sunlight, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Ritson, J.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Thornton, Maxwell R.
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Thurtle, E.
Wright, W.


Romeril, H. G.
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Scrymgeour, E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.



Scurr, John
Turner, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sexton, James
Turner-Samuels, M.
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. T


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Varley, Frank B.
Griffiths.


Sherwood, George Henry
Viant, S. P.



NOES.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Pease, William Edwin


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perring, William George


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Becker, Harry
Harland, A.
Remer, J. R.


Berry, Sir George
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Rentoul, G. S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harvey,C. M. B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Richardson, Lt.-Col Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bourne, Robert Croft
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ropner, Major L.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burman, J. B.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hood, Sir Joseph
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Savery, S. S.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hughes, Collingwood
Shepperson, E. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Steel, Samuel Strang


Clarry, Reginald George
Jephcott, A. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Clayton, G. C.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lamb, J. Q.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cope, Major William
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
McLean, Major A.
Wells, S. R.


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wilson, Colonel M. J. (Richmond)


Davies, Maj- Geo.F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dawson, sir Philip
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wise, Sir Fredric


Deans, Richard Storry
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wolmer, Viscount


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Elliot, Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Elveden, Viscount
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Duchess of Atholl and Colonel


Forestier-Walker, L.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Lambert Ward.

Clause 9 (Short title, citation and extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of provisions of 13 and a George V., c. 24, s. 3, where local authority fails to take action.)

In any case where the Minister certifies that a local authority has failed to take the necessary steps for promoting the construc-
tion of houses under the Housing, Etc., Act. 1923, or this Act, the provisions of Section three of the said Act of 1923 shall apply to persons willing to undertake the construction of houses in the area of the local authority in like manner as they apply to the societies, bodies of trustees. and companies therein mentioned, and the provisions of this Act relative to such societies, bodies, and companies shall extend to those persons.—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am proposing to insert this, in fulfilment of the pledge I gave earlier in the evening to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton).

Lord E. PERCY: I do not want to delay the Committee, but would really like to ask what does the beginning of this Clause mean? It says,
In any case where the Minister certifiee—
Certifies to whom? Is it to himself? There appears to be no authority to whom he must certify under the Section of the principal Act. Does this alter the procedure under the 1919 Act dealing with cases where the local authority fails, in the opinion of the Ministry, to carry out its obligations? What we are anxious to know is this. Whether the Minister can say at any moment to the local authority that it has not given sufficient encouragement to the Department's private enterprise under the 1919 Act, and therefore he will take the responsibility of dealing with the applications of private persons out of the hands of the local authorities, or is he to say to the local authority, "You never authorised any houses to be built by private enterprise and you have not put the Act into force; therefore I will do it." We want to know under what precise conditions the Minister will be able to take action under this proposed new Clause.

Mr. SUNLIGHT: I should like to ask whether, if the subsidies are to be paid to individuals, the local authority is to escape paying any contribution? Is it intended by this Clause that private persons should have the full benefit of the Ministerial subsidy, and is the Minister going to penalise the local authority or charge the local authority with some amount of contribution as the result? There is nothing in the Clause as framed to show what he is going to do in that respect.

Sir CHARLES STARMER: I wish to suggest to the Minister the desirability of adding in line 4, after the word "undertake," the words "or who have undertaken." The reason for that addition is that, under the Act of 1923, many rural councils failed to build any houses at all. Men came out of the Army having no home, and having got their
military grants and raised money from building societies and other sources, they set to work to build their own houses, relying on getting the subsidy provided for in the Act. As a result of the local council failing to put forward any scheme these men are deprived of the subsidy through no fault of their own. They have no legal claim under the Bill, but they have a very strong moral claim. These men were five years in building houses in their respective districts, and very few houses would have been put up but for the ex-service men using their own money for the purpose. I know of cases where men could not complete their houses, and all their savings have gone, because of the failure of the local authority. I do not think that these men ought to be penalised because there has been laxity on the part of a local authority. The Minister would be doing an act of justice to a large number of men who have put all their savings into trying to build a home for themselves if he would insert the words "or have undertaken the construction of a house."

Sir BEDDOE REES: I am very glad to see this Amendment on the Paper, but I should be glad if the Minister could extend it to include any person of whom he might approve, whether the local authority is in default or not. There are many local authorities and it would be very difficult for the Minister to say whether they are in default or not. If the Minister took full power to sanction any person coming under the scheme whom he might approve, it would go a long way to meeting the difficulty. For instance, there may be the ease of an industry that does not want to form a public utility society: a works owned by one individual, who cannot come under the scheme as at present. If it were left open to the Minister to say whether or, not he is a person whom he could approve, that would be a way out of the difficulty, whether or not the local authority is sympathetic. If he could extend the Amendment in that direction, it would meet with the approval of the Committee.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I hoped that this Clause would have gone through without discussion, because we had already discussed it at some length earlier. I am sorry I cannot go beyond what is laid down in the Clause. We have not the machinery for dealing centrally with
applications from all over the country. The very most that we can hope to deal with are the areas in which a local authority refuses to build under this Act and under the Act of 1923. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) asked whether it is to be confined to eases where I think a local authority is not proceeding rapidly. It only applies to cases where they are not proceeding at all. It is true that the 1923 Act did not provide for certification. If certifications are made to me that a local authority is not building or is not providing the machinery whereby people who want houses can have houses built for them, I shall regard it as my duty to make a decision and by that decision certify that they are not doing their duty, and in such cases I shall deal with the persons affected.

Mr. G. SPENCER: I regret that the Minister has not been able to go a little further. With other hon. Members I took a very active part earlier in regard to this matter, and I think we have satisfied the Ministry of Health that there have been some genuinely hard cases which have in certain instances actually received the approval of the council to build houses, or they have received the approval of some officials of the council. In one instance, the person had received the approval of the surveyor, went on with the work, gave the contract for the building of the house, only to find that he could not get the grant because the local authority had failed to put the Act into force. I would have been satisfied if the Minister could have made it obligatory upon the council to pay the subsidy in every case where it could be proved by the man himself that he had the approval of the council or its officials. If the Minister had done that, it would have had the full consent of the Committee. Everybody would be behind the Minister in insisting that every man who has been encouraged to build a house should have the subsidy, just as if he had been living under an authority which actually had put the Act into force.

Mr. BLACK: It appears to me that the effect of this Clause will be to encourage those local authorities which are not progressive to hold their hands. If they are going to save £4 10s. per house, which they would have to pay out of the rates,
by failing to put the Act into operation, they will feel that it is to their interest to neglect their duties, in order that private persons may put up houses and thereby the rates be saved to the extent of £ 4 10s. per house. I feel that this is a step in the wrong direction. Instead of encouraging the local authorities to build houses, this will encourage them to do the opposite thing and to hold their hand in order to induce private persons to come in and build. I would suggest to the Minister that while he gives the £6 subsidy under the 1923 Act he should at the same time give the private person who builds £3 out of the local rates, so that instead of getting the £4;6 they would receive £9, and the local authority would not have the same inducement to refuse to go forward, because they would have to pay at least £3 of the £4 10s. In that way the right hon. Gentleman would be endeavouring to bring those local authorities more into the position they ought to occupy, and would be doing something for the man who builds a house because he cannot get one from the local authorities.

Mr. HILLARY: I should also like to make a plea in the interest of individuals who have built houses expecting that they would have the subsidy. There are many cases. I have one case particularly in mind where there was any amount of evidence that the local authority gave the person to understand that he was on safe lines in going ahead with his building. It is not only unjust, but it is discreditable to this House that a man who has spent all that he has in putting up a house, believing that he was going to get the subsidy, is now turned down. These men were really the pioneers. They built at a time when the housing conditions, if possible, were worse than they are to-day. They came from the Army, many of them wounded men, and they put what money they had into building a home for themselves I suggest that where there is unmistakeable evidence that a local authority has given a man to understand that he was on safe lines, he certainly has a just case for getting the subsidy

Lord E. PERCY: Am I to understand that, if a local authority build houses under the 1923 Act itself, and refuses to put into force the provisions of the 1923 Act as regards private enterprise, the Minister is powerless to put this Clause into effect?

Mr. WHEATLEY: If the Noble Lord will read the Amendment he will see that point is answered. I submitted this Clause to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), to whom made the promise, and he is perfectly satisfied with it. I sympathise with all the difficulties and hardships of the people who have attempted to build houses and who have been misled by certain local authorities or their officials, but if I were to make that Clause retrospective it would be the cause of endless trouble. The best I can do is to provide for these cases in future, but I cannot extricate these people from any difficulties in which they have been placed by legislation or administration in the past.

Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope that this is not quite the last word on the subject. This Clause is governed entirely by cases in which the local authorities failed to take the necessary steps. It applies only to a very small number of local authorities. You leave a certain number of rural districts in which there are very hard eases, as the Minister of Health knows himself, in which men have built, expecting to get the Chamberlain subsidy, and have been actually encouraged to go on in the belief that the local authority would adopt the Act and give the subsidy, and it seems to me monstrous that many of those people should be left in a state of bankruptcy at the present time when, by giving a small amount of money and not over-exercising the brilliant brains of the Department which the right hon. Gentleman controls, those cases might be provided for. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will adopt the Amendment.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am dealing with such cases almost every day, and on many occasions am able to get them the help that is expected. Whatever I can do administratively, I will be anxious to do, but I cannot do what is now asked.

Mr. G. SPENCER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in cases which are brought to his notice, he will use his influence with every authority to see that what, is necessary shall be done?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes, I will be very pleased to deal with any such cases that hon. Members may bring to my notice.

Lord E. PERCY: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the question which I asked, and which he has misunderstood. The 1923 Act contemplated two different kinds of building, building by local authorities and by private enterprise under a subsidy given by the State through the local authorities. I understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that if a local authority is carrying out building under the 1923 Act in one way, that is to say itself, but refuses to give any subsidy on private enterprise in any form, then the Minister will be enabled under this Clause to take away private enterprise from the local authority and to take it into his own hands. If that is so, then from the point of view of my Noble Friend, the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), this Clause is quite nugatory, and I would ask the Minister whether that is the case?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have not heard of any local authority that is providing houses for letting but refuses to provide facilities for houses for the owner occupier. If I find that I have any difficulty in carrying out my intention by this Clause, I will make the necessary Amendment. I do not think that such cases exist, but if I find that I am labouring under a misapprehension, I will amend my Clause to that extent, but I do not think that there will be any necessity.

Sir B. REES: What exactly is meant by the first line of this Clause?—
in any case where the Minister certifies that a local authority.
It is very vague. To whom will the certificate be given

10.0 P.M.

Mr. BLACK: I put a very definite case in which I show that the local authority would have an inducement not to provide the houses because it would escape the payment of £4 10s., and I ingested that the Minister should take into consideration the provision of a £3 subsidy from the local authority. The Minister has not given any reply.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am very sorry that I cannot accept that suggestion.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am anxious to discover exactly what machinery the Minister has in contemplation for the purpose of giving effect to tills Clause. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. G. Spencer)
and others have referred to cases under the last Act in which people came forward to build houses expecting a subsidy afterwards, and then found that there was no subsidy, with the result that many of them have regretted their action. Now the words at the beginning of this Clause do not make quite clear how these people are to ascertain that they will become entitled to a subsidy. The words refer simply to a certificate which the Minister has to give. There is no indication that any public notice is to be given to anybody that the conditions have arisen, and before the Report stage my right hon. Friend might well consider putting into the Clause some provision for a public intimation being made. If such notice were given people who then accepted the position would become entitled to the subsidy, but think that there is a great deal of substance in the right hon. Gentleman's point that it is impossible for him at this stage to deal retrospectively with the people who had such an unfortunate experience.
There is another point which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden. There is no indication of the time in which the Minister has to certify under this Act, and a great many other things are left vague. I think that the right hon. Gentleman indicated in one of his replies that it was only in case the local authority failed to do anything at all, but that is not the provision here. If they took a step under one Act or the other it seems to me that if they made a very slight effort in the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would not be able

to put this Clause into operation. I think that the opening proviso, laying down the conditions, is open to the objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Black) that this Clause gives an inducement to local authorities to evade their responsibility in the hope that private individuals will do the work and that the local authorities will thus escape their responsibility.

Clause read a Second time.

Sir C. STARMER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 4, after the word "undertake," to insert the words "or who have undertaken."
The object of this Amendment is to make the Clause retrospective as regards the 1923 Act. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have put to him several cases of extreme hardship which have been submitted to the local council and turned down by the local council and the Minister of Health for the simple reason that the council does not want to pay its share, of the subsidies. These men are pioneers in house building in their districts. Theirs are extremely hard cases, which are very well known to the Department, and much machinery is not required to deal with them.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 155.

Division No. 175.]
AYES.
[10.8 p.m.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Briant, Frank
Darbishire, C. W.


Alstead, R.
Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brunner, Sir J.
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovll)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Buckingham, Sir H.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Atholl, Duchess of
Burman, J. B.
Deans, Richard Storry


Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.
Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Dickie, Captain J. P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dodds, S. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Calne, Gordon Hall
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dudgeon, Major C. R


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dunn, J. Freeman


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Elliot, Walter E.


Berry, Sir George
Chapple. Dr. William A.
Elveden, Viscount


Betterton, Henry B.
Clarry, Reginald George
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)


Birkett, W. N.
Clayton, G. C.
England, Colonel A.


Black, J. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Blundell, F. N.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Falconer, J.


Bonwick, A.
Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Bourne, Robert Croft
Cope, Major William
Ferguson, H.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Finney, V. H.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward. A.


Brass, Captain W.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Forestier-Walker, L.


Franklin, L. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Ropner, Major L.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McCrae, Sir George
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
McLean, Major A.
Russell. Alexander West- (Tynemouth)


Greenall, T.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
Maden, H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D,


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Savery, S. S.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Simon, E. D.(Manchester,Withington)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Kinc'dine.E)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Harland, A.
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Meller, R. J.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Spencer. H. H. (Bradford. S.)


Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Mitchell.R.M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Steel, Samuel Strang


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morris, R. H.
Stewart. Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Stranger, Innes Harold


Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Murrell, Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hindle, F.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Sueter. Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Terrington. Lady


Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D. (St.Marylebone)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Hope, Rt. Han. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Thornton. Maxwell R.


Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Owen, Major G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland,Northn.)
Pease, William Edwin
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Warrender. Sir Victor


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Perring, William George
Wells. S. R.


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Phillipps, Vivian
Weston, John Wakefield


Jephcott, A. R.
Raffan, P. W.
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool,W.Derby)
Raffety, F. W.
Williams, Col. P. (Middiesbrough, E.)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent.Sevenoaks)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rankin, James S.
Wilson. Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Rathbone, Hugh R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kedward, R. M.
Rawson. Alfred Cooper
Wise, Sir Fredric


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Rea, W. Russell
Wolmer. Viscount


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L


Lamb, J. Q.
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Lane-Fox, George R.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Laverack, F. J.
Remer, J. R.
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Rentoul, G. S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lessing, E.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)



Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Loverseed, J. F.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes. Stretford)
Sir C. Starmer and Mr. Linfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Gillett, George M.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gosling, Harry
Kenyon, Barnet


Alden, Percy
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Kirkwood. D.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lansbury, George


Ayles, W. H.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Law. A.


Baker, Walter
Greenall, T.
Lawrence Susan (East Ham. North)


Banton, G.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lawson. John James


Barker, G, (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Leach W,


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lowtn, I.


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Groves, T.
Lunn, William


Bondfield, Margaret
Grundy, T. W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
McEntee. V. L.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mackinder. W.


Buckle, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Burney. Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hardie, George D.
March, S


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Marley, James


Cape, Thomas
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Charleton, H. C.
Haycock, A. W.
Maxton. James


Church, Major A. G.
Hayday, Arthur
Middleton. G.


Clarke, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Milne. J. S. Wardlaw


Climie, R.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Montague, Frederick


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Morel, E D.


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Crittall, V. G.
Hillary, A. E.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, G. H.
Muir John W.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hodges, Frank
Murray, Robert


Dickson, T.
Hoffman, P. C.
Naylor. T. E.


Dukes, C.
Hudson, J. H.
Nichol, Robert


Duncan, C.
Isaacs, G. A.
O'Grady, Captain James


Eden, Captain Anthony
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Oliver. George Harold


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Paling, W.


Egan, W. H.
Jewson, Dorothea
Palmer, E. T.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Perry S. F.


Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.


Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Purcell. A. A.




Raynes, W. R.
Snell, Harry
Westwood, J.


Richards, R.
Spence, R,
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stephen, Campbell
whiteley, w.


Ritson, J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wignall, James


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W.Bromwich)
Sullivan, J.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Romeril, H. G.
Thurtle, E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Scrymgeour, E.
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)


Scurr, John
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sexton, James
Turner, Ben
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shepperson, E. W.
Varley, Frank a.
Windsor, Walter


Sherwood, George Henry
Viant, S. P.
Wright, W.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wailhead, Richard C.
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, partick)


Smillie, Robert
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)



Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Mr. Warne and Mr. John Robertson.


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Welsh, J. C.



Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next proposed new Clause on which I call is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. E. Brown).

Mr. T. THOMSON: On a point of Order. Do I understand that the proposed new Clause, standing in my name—(Prohibition on demolition of dwelling-houses)—is ruled out of order?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That Clause and also the proposed new Clause standing next on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member—(Prohibition of building operations which interfere with the provision of dwelling-houses)—are outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. THOMSON: With all respect, may I submit that, in so far as the first. Clause seeks to provide additional housing, it can he read as incidental to the financial provisions of the Act of 1923: and, as regards the second Clause, insofar as it would prevent the use of materials or labour for purposes other than the provision of dwelling-houses, it will also carry out the provisions of the 1923 Act.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: I have been considering those points. This Bill is a Bill to amend the Housing Act of 1923 within the very specific and defined limits of the Financial Resolution. In my opinion, these Clauses are quite outside the scope of that Resolution, and, therefore, are out of order.

NEW CLAUSE.—(General survey.)

That it shall be the duty of the Minister to carry out a general survey of housing needs in order to ascertain the exact requirements of the local authorities as to the provision of new houses and the replacement of unfit houses. That the survey shall ascertain the available local supplies of labour and materials and shall define the standard of unfit houses.—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I suggest to the Committee that this is one of the most important, subjects discussed in the course of this Debate. I give four reasons for my proposal. First, no reliable data now exist as to the number of new houses required, or as to the localities in which they are required. Second, the Report of the National House Building Committee appointed by the Minister recommends such a survey. Third, all housing reformers demand it. Fourth and last—a, very important reason from the point of view of county Members—the result of such a survey and the exact knowledge gained by it must have a great effect, upon the distribution of labour and materials as between the great cities or the one hand and the rural areas on the other. With regard to the first point I need not do more than quote from the speech delivered by the Minister of Health during the Debate of 3rd June on the Financial Resolution. In that Debate the Minister said:
In comparing that [referring to the last Act] with what we might have expected, it is well to consider for a moment what the annual requirements of these millions families who depend for housing accommodation on houses to let amount to in this country. I do not want to lay down any dogmatic figures. There are no reliable data with which one can defend any figure that is controverted, but I think that those who understand the problem will be inclined to agree that, taking into account the loss, arising from the depreciation of property and the growth of population, something like 100,000 new houses would be required annually to prevent the housing shortage from increasing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1924; cols. 1101–2; Vol. 174.]
I suggest that that speech alone justifies this new Clause. It is quite an extraordinary thing to come to this House with a Bill purporting to provide for the erection of 2,500,000 houses, in 15 years, at an expenditure of £1,400,000,000, and to
admit, when proposing the Financial Resolution on which to base the Bill, that nobody knows reliably where the houses are wanted or in what quantities. I suggest that that argument alone is sufficient justification for the Clause I am moving. Let me go a little further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If the hon. Members on the Labour Benches desire to delay their Bill, I can go a good deal further, for this subject is one which would justify a Debate for three or four hours. I want to call their attention, if they will give it to me for a moment and thus facilitate the passing of the Minister's Bill, to pages 24 and 25 of the Report of the National House Building Committee, where it says:
Whilst recording its opinions on this point, the Committee desires to add that a general survey, showing, as far as possible, the housing proposals of each district, would be of great assistance to the Statutory Committee. Such a survey would enable this Committee to compile a corresponding survey of the labour supply and the materials supply both available and needed in the various localities.
In connection with the fourth point, I had, on the same page, page 24, of the same Report:
The Committee has gone very carefully into this question. The matter is one which presents many difficulties. It is essential, in the first place, that the supply of labour and the supply of materials should harmonise in any particular district and that both these elements should be present in the right proportions to cope with the housing need, of that district.
I suggest that that meets the point to which I alluded in my first sentence that, unless we know where the houses are needed, it will be extraordinarily difficult for the small urban districts and the rural districts to get the available labour and material supplies in the requisite quantities. The other point is that housing reformers demand it. Hon. Members above the Gangway will have given great consideration to the Conference of the National Housing and Town Planning Association at Buxton in February, or, if they have not, I suggest

that they might do so now. They will find that one of the Resolutions passed by that very able association of housing reformers demands exactly what is down in this Clause, namely, a new housing survey. The last point I wish to make is this, that the estimates now in the possession of the Ministry of Health vary in the most extraordinary manner. I will make one comparison only, a comparison between the estimate presented to the Local Government Board in 1918 and that presented to the Ministry of Health in 1919, to show how varied are the ideas in the districts themselves as to the number of houses required.

I will take two or three sample figures, first from rural areas and then from urban areas. In 1918, Bedfordshire suggested to the Local Government Board that they required 2.206 new cottages; a year afterwards they suggested to the Ministry of Health that they required 4,097 cottages. In Buckinghamshire it was suggested in 1918 that 1,652 cottages were wanted in the rural areas, and in 1919 it was suggested that 3,357 were wanted. I will take one other only of the 20 I have down here. I will take my native county of Devon. In 1918 the Councils in Devonshire suggested to the Local Government Board that they would require 5,500 new houses, and in 1919, for reasons which I could state, but I will not detain the Committee, they suggested that they wanted 11,800. These simple figures of all the rural areas will convince the Committee, as the Minister said himself in his speech, that there is no reliable data at all. I will take two industrial districts—Durham and Warwickshire. In 1918 the councils of Durham suggested that they required 17,805 houses, and in 1919 they required 47,950. Warwickshire in 1918 suggested they required 19,147 houses, and in 1919, 72,812. I suggest that nothing more is required from me to prove the need for this new Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided Ayes, 102; Noes, 257

Division No. 176.]
AYES.
[10.27 p.m.


Alstead, R.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Aske. Sir Robert William
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Collins, Patrick (Walsall)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Briant, Frank
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Berry, Sir George
Brunner, Sir J.
Darbishire, C. W.


Birkett, W. N.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Dickie, Captain J. P.


Black, J. W.
Burnle Major J. (Bootle)
Dodos, S. R.


Bonwick, A.
Calne, Gordon Hall
Dudgeon Major C. R.


Dunn, J. Freeman
Kedward, R. M.
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Kenyon, Barnet
Rankin, James S.


Falconer, J.
Laverack, F. J.
Rathbone, Hugh R.


Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lessing, E.
Rea, w. Russell


Ferguson, H.
Linfield, F. C.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Franklin, L. B.
Livingstone, A. M.
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Loverseed, J. F.
Remer, J. R.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
McCrae, Sir George
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)


Gorman, William
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Guest, Capt. Hn.F.E,(Gloucstr.,Stroud)
Maden, H.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Hall, Lieut.-Col Sir F. (Dulwich)
Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Kinc'dine, E.)
Starmer, Sir Charles


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Stranger, Innes Harold


Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Millar, J. D.
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser


Harris, Percy A.
Mitchell,R.M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Sunlight, J.


Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Terrington, Lady


Hindle, F.
Morris, R. H.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Hood, Sir Joseph
Murrell, Frank
Waddington, R.


Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Owen, Major G.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W.Derby)
Phillipps, Vivian
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pringle, W. M. R.



Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Raffan, P. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Raffety, F. W.
Mr. Ernest Brown and Mr.




Trevelyan Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex, Enfield)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Alden, Percy
Dawson, Sir Philip
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Deans, Richard Storry
Hillary, A. E.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Dickson, T.
Hirst, G. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Hodges, Frank


Atholl, Duchess of
Dukes, C.
Hoffman, P. C.


Ayles, W. H.
Duncan, C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Baker, Walter
Eden, Captain Anthony
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland, Northrn.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hudson, J. H.


Banton, G.
Egan, W. H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Elliot, Walter E.
Isaacs, G. A.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Elveden, Viscount
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
England, Colonel A.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)


Batey, Joseph
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H
Finney, V. H.
Jephcott, A. R.


Beckett, Sir Gervase
FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Jewson, Dorothea


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Forestier-Walker, L.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Betterton, Henry B.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Blundell, F. N.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Bondfield, Margaret
Gates, Percy
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Bourne, Robert Croft
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Brass, Captain W.
Gillett, George M.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gosling, Harry
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Buckle, J.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Kirkwood, D.


Burman, J. B.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lamb, J. O.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lane-Fox, George R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lansbury, George


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Greenall, T.
Law, A.


Cape, Thomas
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)


Cassels, J. D.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Leach, W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Groves, T.
Lowth, T.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Grundy, T. W.
Lumley, L. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Lunn, William


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
McEntee, V. L.


Charleton, H. C.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mackinder, W.


Church, Major A. G.
Hail, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McLean, Major A.


Clarke, A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Clarry. Reginald George
Hardie, George D.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Clayton, G. C.
Harland, A.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Climie, R.
Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)
March, S.


Cluse, W. S.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Marley, James


Cope, Major William
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Crittall, V. G.
Haycock, A. W.
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hayday, Arthur
Maxton, James


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hayes, John Henry
Meller, R. J.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Middleton, G.




Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Ropner, Major L.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Ward. Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Montague, Frederick
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Morel, E. D.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Savery, S. S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Muir, John W.
Scrymgeour, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Murray, Robert
Scurr, John
Wells, S. R.


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Sexton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Naylor, T. E.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Weston, John Wakefield


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shepperson, E. W.
Westwood, J.


Nichol, Robert
Sherwood, George Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


O'Grady, Captain James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wheler, Lieut-Col. Granville C. H.


Oliver, George Harold
Smillie, Robert
Whiteley, W.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wignall, James


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Paling, w.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Palmer, E. T.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snell, Harry
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent,Sevenoaks)


Pease, William Edwin
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Spence, R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Perring, William George
Steel, Samuel Strang
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Perry, S. F.
Stephen, Campbell
Windsor, Walter


Potts, John S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Raynes, W. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Sullivan, J.
Wolmer, Viscount


Richards, R.
Thurtle, E.
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wright, W.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Ritson, J.
Turner, Ben
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)
Turner-Samuels, M.



Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Varley, Frank B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Warne and Mr. Frederick Hall.


Romeril, H. G.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment selected is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir Cyril Cobb).

Mr. PRINGLE: There is a very important issue raised by the new Clause (Compulsory hiring of vacant houses) standing in the name of the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley).

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Harrow is out of Order.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Expenses of London County Council.)

Any expenses incurred by the London County Council under this Act and under Section two of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, as amended by this Act shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes.—[Sir Cyril Cobb.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir C. COBB: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Amendment will give the City an opportunity of contributing its proper share towards the housing problem. At the present time we are not able to draw from the City that quota of rates which we should be able to draw if the City was not exempted. The City is, in itself, a county, and has all the privileges and rights of a county. Therefore it is its own housing authority. I want to do
justice to the City, and say what it has done under previous Housing Acts in the matter of providing houses.
It must, of course, be remembered that the City has not at the present moment a large population, and, therefore, if it is going to be said that a local authority has to provide housing according to its population, it might be said that, in as much as the resident population of the City is a very small one, therefore very little duty falls upon the City for housing purposes. That, however, has not been the attitude of the City itself. It has recognised the fact that large numbers of people come into the City every day to work there, and it is those workers who make the City what it is. Therefore, the City has recognised Mat it has had a duty to provide a housing scheme. But, under the first Housing Act, it was only necessary for the City to make itself responsible for a pertly rate, and, in doing that, it kept pace with the other authority in London, namely, the London County Council, and both the County Council and the City were spending on housing their full penny rate.
When, however, the 1923 Act was passed, it became, apparently, distasteful to the City to provide houses under that very much larger scheme, and under the Act of 1923 and, so far as preparations are possible, under the present Measure, no housing has been undertaken by the City.
Under the system of rating by means of a general rate—which means that the county council is able to draw rates from the whole area of London, including the City—£200,000 is brought in by a 1d. rate. If we have to exclude the City, which we have to do in the matter of housing, in the matter of tramways and in the matter of mental hospitals, then the ld. rate produces only £176,000. It is, therefore, clear that, if we have to exclude the City, as we have to do under the statutory provisions at present existing, we lose something between £24,000 and £25,000 on every 1d. of rate that we have to raise. The effect of that is that, if we have a great housing scheme, as we have both under the Act of 1923 and, in preparation under the present Measure, we have to find the same amount of money whether we are able to get our £25,000 from each 1d. of rate from the City or whether we are not.
Our argument is that it ought to be possible for us to use the wealth of the City in order to help the poorer boroughs of London to finance the very costly scheme which we shall have to finance under the present Measure. That is the main argument for asking the City to contribute to this housing scheme which has been launched by the London County Council. We are making no attack upon the City, but we say that, because we have to raise this very large sum of money, it is only the duty of the City to give us the quota which represents its share of the whole of London. The City is not in this way prevented from exercising its own independence in making schemes of its own. It would still be able to have its own scheme if it likes, just as any borough council within the area of London is able to have its own housing scheme. In the case of a borough council, not, only does it pay for its own housing schemes but it also pays its own quota towards the general housing scheme of the London County Council. We think the same principle should exist with regard to the City.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It was a little difficult to follow all the hon. Member has said from where I was sitting, and I hope he will not think me guilty of any disrespect if I do not follow him into all his arguments. As I understand the matter, the policy underlying the Amendment is to compel the City to contribute
to the expenses of the schemes carried out by the London County Council. There is no desire on the part of the Government to take any party view with regard to this, and if anyone desires to have a division, which I hope in the interests of time will not be necessary, there will certainly be no desire to put on the Party Whips. The Amendment has occurred on many occasions previously. It is merely a dispute between the City and the London County Council and, as I understand it, the view of the City is that they are really not concerned in the housing that is undertaken by the County Council. They express a strong view that it would not be proper that they should be called upon to contribute to the expense. Personally I oppose the Amendment, but it is not a matter for the Government to intervene in. I hope the hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind that the Amendment has been repeatedly introduced and negatived in a succession of housing Bills, will see no need to press it to a division.

Mr. P. HARRIS: I am disappointed with the Attorney-General's speech. I thought, as a lawyer, he would be interested in getting justice done. Here is a case of ordinary common justice to the people of London. The hon. and learned Gentleman might very well study the housing history of the City of London and surrounding districts. All round the City of London are some of the worst slums in the United Kingdom. The main cause of these slums is the fact that the development of the City and the conversion of houses into banks and business premises have driven the people from inside the City walls to the surrounding districts of Bethnal Green, Whitechapel, Poplar, and so on. That is the main cause of our difficulties in London. The pushing out of the people from the City has enormously added to its assessable value. What had been valued as house property has now become of enormous value as banks, insurance premises, shipping offices, and so on, and the result, of course, has been enormously to add to the assessable value of the City and at the same time to add to the total burdens of the surrounding boroughs. The City has practically no resident population at all. The number of people who live within the City
walls is something like 13,000, and therefore the demand for housing is nonexistent. It is true they are prepared, and they have in the past made some small effort to do some housing themselves, but the same effort has been made by all the boroughs of London. Woolwich, for instance, is developing a very large estate on its own account, bearing the cost mainly from the local rates. At the same time the borough of Woolwich is going to contribute its share of the penny rate, or whatever rate is levied, to make up the deficiency in the Act of 1923 and 1924. I am sure Woolwich is not going to shirk. The borough I represent, Bethnal Green, is going to take on a load of responsibility, and under its local rates is going to make contributions towards housing. Although a penny rate in Bethnal Green only brings in £2,500, it brings in £25,000 in the City. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I am surprised that a Labour Government, through its Attorney-General, should refuse to take any side in making this long overdue measure of justice to the poorer districts of London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I am not surprised that hon. Members opposite are impatient at hearing these facts, because they have always some of them been in the pocket of the City of London. I hope a serious anomaly will be removed in the administration of housing in London.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: As Member for the City of London I should like to say a few words. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] The City of London is quite ready to give, but its objects to having its pockets picked. In this simple Amendment, which seemed free from guile when proposed by my hon. Friend, I looked for nothing affecting my constituency until I found a similar New Clause proposed by a Member below the Gangway. Then I found a similar Clause proposed by an hon. Member sitting on the Government side. Then I began to be afraid. This unanimity seemed almost suspicious and I suspected some predatory policy. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) were so charming, that I almost felt inclined to give away the case, but when we consider, as he said, that the City has always been independent and in the past has not only
borne its own share in the Housing Bill but has done a good deal more, I think the City is entitled to have some attention paid to it on this subject.

Mr. LANSBURY: Every borough in London has done its share. The hon. Gentleman says the City has done its duty; no one denies that, but every borough in London has also done its share.

Mr. GRENFELL: I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. What I was about to suggest was that the City was ready to do more than its proper share. Let me give the Committee a few facts. Under the previous Act it was arranged that the City should still be independent. It was also arranged that the City and county council should put their heads together and agree on some joint scheme. The City has done that. Under the 19]9 Act it had arranged a scheme for building houses: These houses are not being built in the City. There is not much room to build houses there. On that account the City arranged with the county council to build 2,000 houses at Ilford. It also arranged to put up some dwellings in tile Old Kent Road. Those latter dwellings were completed. The buildings at Ilford were not because of instructions issued by the Minister of Health stopping the scheme. About 200 were built and 400 had their foundations completed, but the building was not continued because of the prohibition of the Minister. The City borrowed from £2,500,000 to £2,750,000 for this purpose. It has only spent. £750,000. As a matter of fact very little money has been spent under the 1923 Act. Operations under this Act for certain reasons have been suspended, but this month a large scheme is under consideration by the City for using the funds they have in hand. Nearly all these buildings have been built and practically all the money has been spent outside the City in the London County Council area The hon. Member who proposed this Clause said he did so in order to give the City the privilege of acting with the County Council. He also said that the City is independent. It asks to retain its independence because of its privileges, but for the future it is ready to pursue the same broad-minded policy and to make provision in co-operation with the County Council, for housing,
although out of a sense of its dignity it prefers to spend the money itself and as it chooses. I have not taken long, and possibly I have not made out my case very well, but I think the City has a good case. We have as much desire to treat this matter in a friendly spirit as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The hon. Member for the City (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) has stated the case for the City of London quite as well and clearly as it could be stated. Nevertheless, he has not convinced me as to the injustice of the Amendment The case for the Amendment is exceedingly simple. It is not a question of interfering with the housing powers of the City Corporation; they are not in any way affected by this Amendment. Those powers will continue just as well as the powers of each Metropolitan borough council in the County of London. They have concurrent building powers with the London County Council, and if a borough council builds, it will have to bear its share of its own local loss on its own local rates as well as its share of the county loss. All we ask is that, if that is so with the borough council, it ought to be so with the City Corporation that, if they build houses within or without their area, they should bear their local loss, and that also as a part of the administrative County of London they should share with the poor Metropolitan borough councils the total loss of the housing expenditure of the London County Council.
A burden is imposed upon Poplar, for example, in bearing its own local losses in respect of its excellent little estate on the Isle of Dogs, and a burden falls upon Woolwich, with its very large number of houses locally built. They have to bear their local losses, plus their share of the county loss falling upon the county rate. If that is fair in the case of Woolwich, Poplar, Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Hackney and Westminster—although Westminster is not building, so far as I know—it is equally just that that should be done in the case of the City of London. This Amendment means about £100,000 per annum ultimately, if the programme of the Minister, is adopted, to be met by the ratepayers, of London, and we say that the City
should bear its share. May I point out that every man, whether he be Conservative, Labour or Liberal, who represents a constituency in the County of London, with the exception of the hon. Members who represent the City, that every one of their constituencies has a financial interest in this Amendment, and I hope that every London Member, with the exception of the two hon. Members representing the City, will vote for the Amendment. The Amendment is clear, just and fair. There are plenty of precedents for the City being associated with the County of London in this way, although they may have independent powers, and I hope the Committee will agree to the Amendment and do justice to the masses of the people in the County of London.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In view of the fact that the Government do not propose to put on their Whips, I may say that we do not intend to put on our Whips. We will leave the matter to a free vote. At the same time, seeing that the Attorney-General has stated his views, may I have the same privilege of stating that my own personal views are entirely in favour of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Grenfell). The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) rather tried to confuse the issue.

Mr. MORRISON: I tried to make the matter clear, and I resent the suggestion that I tried to confuse the issue.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. He did not try, but he succeeded in confusing the issue. The City through all the Housing Acts has maintained, by the authority of Parliament, its independent position. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Why?"] By the desire of Parliament. It is a separate housing authority on the level of the county council. It deals with its housing problems exactly as the county council does. It builds large numbers of houses, in accordance with its plans, and is prepared to go on building more and has the money ready. The City of London have already spent £700,000 during the last few years on housing schemes, and they are prepared to spend another £2,000,000 in housing people not merely in the City but outside the City, and these facts are sufficient, I hope, to induce not merely my
hon. Friends on this side, but all those who on the other side respect the bargains which Parliament has made in previous years with regard to the position of the City of London, to vote against this Clause.

Dr. CHAPPLE: The success of the City depends on the people who work there. The City pay for the work which these people do, but the City should also bear its share of the cost of housing these people. Hundreds of thousands of people

who go to the City of London daily are housed by other areas, and it is not fair that the City of London should escape its part of the burden of housing these people. We are going; to vote on this question on the merits and not under the party Whips, and on the merite there is no question but that, this new Clause should be carried.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 110.

Division No. 177.]
AYES.
[11.8 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Franklin, L. B.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald


Alden, Percy
Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Kedward, R. M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Keens, T.


Alstead, R.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Kenyon. Barnet


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gates, Percy
Kirkwood, D.


Ayles, W. H.
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Lansbury, George


Baker, Walter
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Laverack, F. J.


Banton, G.
Gibbins, Joseph
Law, A.


Barclay, R. Noton
Gillett, George M.
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gorman, William
Lawson, John James


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gosling, Harry
Leach, W.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Linfield, F C.


Batey, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Livingstone, A. M.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Birkett, W. N.
Greenall, T.
Loverseed, J. F.


Black, J. W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lowth, T.


Bondfield, Margaret
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
McCrae, Sir George


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Groves, T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Grundy, T. W.
McEntee, V. L.


Briant, Frank
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Macfadyen, E.


Broad, F. A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Mackinder, W.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maclean Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Macnamara Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Buckle, J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Maden, H


Bullock, Captain M.
Hardie, George D.
March, S.


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Marley, James


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Percy A.
Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Kinc'dine, E.)


Chapman, Sir S.
Harvey, C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.


Charleton, H. C.
Haycock, A. W.
Maxton, James


Church, Major A. G.
Hayday, Arthur
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.


Clarke, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Middleton, G.


Climie, R.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Millar, J. D.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Mills, J. D.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)
Mitchell, R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Hillary, A. E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Montague, Frederick


Costello, L. W. J.
Hindle, F.
Morel, E. D.


Crittall, V. G.
Hirst, G. H.
Morris, R. H.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hobhouse, A. L.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Darbishire, C. W.
Hodges, Frank
Moulton, Major Fletcher


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hoffman, P. C.
Murray, Robert


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Murrell, Frank


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Naylor, T. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Hudson, J. H.
Nichol, Robert


Dickson, T.
Isaacs, G. A.
O'Grady, Captain James


Dodds, S. R.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Oliver, George Harold


Dudgeon, Major C. R,
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Heath)
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)


Dukes, C.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Owen, Major G.


Duncan, C.
Jewson, Dorothea
Paling, W


Dunnico, H.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palmer, E. T.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Egan, W. H.
Johnstone, Harccurt (Willesden, East)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Elliot, Walter E.
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Perring, William George


England, Colonel A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Perry, S. F.


Falconer, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ferguson, H.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Phillipps, Vivian


Finney, V. H.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Potts, John S.


Pringle, W. M. R.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Purcell, A. A.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Warne, G. H.


Raffan, P. W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Raffety, F. W.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Snell, Harry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Rathbone, Hugh R.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Welsh, J. C.


Raynes, W. R.
Spence, R.
Weston, John Wakefield


Rea, W. Russell
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Westwood, J.


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spero. Dr. G. E.
Whiteley, W.


Richards, R.
Starmer, Sir Charles
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Ritson, J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B.(Kennington)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, Maj. A.S. (Kent,Sevenoaks)


Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Stranger, Innes Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Sullivan, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Robinson, sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Sunlight, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Romeril, H. G.
Terrington, Lady
Windsor, Walter


Ropner, Major L.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Scrymgeour, E.
Thornton, Maxwell R.
Wintringham, Margaret


Scurr, John
Thurtle, E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wond, Sir H. K. (Woolwich. West)


Sexton, James
Tout, W. J.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Turner, Ben
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Shepperson, E. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wright, W.


Sherwood, George Henry
Varley, Frank B.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Simon, E. D.(Manchester, Withington)
Viant, S. P.



Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Vivian, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smillie, Robert
Wallhead, Richard C.
Sir Cyril Cobb and Mr. Herbert




Morrison.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Elvedon, Viscount
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Amery. Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Boamish, Captain T. P. H.
Guest, Capt. Hn. F. E.(Gloucstr, Stroud)
Remer, J. R.


Becker, Harry
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harland, A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Blundell, F. N
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bonwick, A.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Bourne, Robert Croft
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Savory, S. S.


Brittain, sir Harry
Hood, Sir Joseph
Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)


Brunner, Sir J.
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Stanley, Lord


Burman, J. B.
Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland, Northn.)
Steel, Samuel Strang


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Huntingfield, Lord
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frases


Calne, Gordon Hall
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cassels, J. D.
Jephcott, A. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Waddington, R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Warrender, Sir Victor


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Lamb, J. Q.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lane-Fox, George R.
wells, S. R.


Clayton, G. C.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Cope, Major William
Lumley, L. R.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
McLean, Major A.
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Deans, Richard Storry
Marriott, Sir J. A. R



Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Meller, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Dunn, J. Freeman
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Nail and


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, W. F, (Saffron Walden)
Mr. E. C. Grenfell.

Clause read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: On that Question I should like to ask whether, in fact, it is within the scope of the Bill to include a Clause which will impose a rate on a local authority without any notice
to that authority of such a provision? Due notice ought to have been given, and I suggest that the principle involved is one of the greatest importance. I wish specially to ask hon. Members who represent boroughs to bear this in mind.

Mr. LANSBURY: How can this be a point of Order?

Mr. MASTERMAN: Is it in order for an hon. Member to contest your ruling, Sir, that the Clause is in order, as we have already divided upon it?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be doing so. I understand that he is objecting to the Clause being added to the Bill.

Sir J. NALL: I should be the last to question your ruling. What I am suggesting to the Committee is that to add this Clause to the Bill will imperil the further passage of the Bill, because notice should have been given to the local authorities concerned of such a provision as this.
The other point that I wish to make is this, that if this principle be accepted on Report stage and remains in the Bill, the point involved is of the greatest importance to every borough and city in the country. If cities like Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham, and every borough in the country are to be required, on the ground that the people working in them live outside their borders, to pay something towards the housing schemes in

areas outside, then the whole question is going to operate most unfairly, and the whole situation will have to be reconsidered. It s no use the hon. Gentleman opposite saying I know nothing about this scheme. I am fully aware that the conditions in provincial cities are different front the conditions in this particular case, but the principle is the same; and in the case of Manchester, although Manchester is able to conduct, and, in fact, is conducting, large schemes of house-building within the city borders, which the City of London cannot do, the fact remains that a vast number of people who work daily in provincial cities reside outside, the city borders On that ground, I say the principle involved in this Clause is of the greatest importance to every borough and every city in the country, and I hop: that hon. Members will have that point in mind and now join with me in dividing against this Clause being added to the Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 102.

Division No. 178.]
AYES.
[11.25 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dickie, Captain J. P.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dickson, T.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Alstead, R.
Dodds, S. R.
Hardie, George D.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Ayles, W. H.
Dukes, C.
Harris, Percy A.


Banton, G.
Duncan, C.
Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)


Barclay, R. Noton
Dunnico, H.
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Haycock, A. W.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Egan, W. H.
Hayday, Arthur


Batey, Joseph
Elliot, Walter E.
Hayes, John Henry


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)


Birkett, W. N.
England, Colonel A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Black, J. W.
Falconer, J.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)


Bondfield, Margaret
Ferguson, H.
Hillary, A. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Finney, V. H.
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Hindle, F.


Briant, Frank
Franklin, L. B.
Hirst, G. H.


Broad, F. A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Hobhouse, A. L.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Hodges, Frank


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Hoffman, P. C.


Buckle, J
Gates, Percy
Hogbin, Henry Cairns


Bullock, Captain M.
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)


Cape, Thomas
Gibbins, Joseph
Hudson, J. H


Chapman, Sir S.
Gillett, George M.
Isaacs, G. A.


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Gorman, William
Jackson, R. F, (Ipswich)


Charleton, H. C.
Gosling, Harry
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Church, Major A. G.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Clarke, A.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jewson, Dorothea


Climie, R.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Cluse, W. S.
Greenall, T.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Johnstone. Harcourt (Willesden, East)


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Costello, L. W. J.
Groves, T.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Crittall, V. G.
Grundy, T. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Guest, Capt. Hn.F.E.(Gloucstr., Stroud
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Darbishire, C. W.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)


Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Palmer, E. T.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Kedward, R. M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Starmer, Sir Charles


Keens, T.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Steel, Samuel Strang


Kirkwood, D.
Perring, William George
Stephen, Campbell


Lansbury, George
Perry, S. F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Laverack, F. J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Phillipps, Vivian
Stranger, Innes Harold


Lawson, John James
Ponsonby, Arthur
Sullivan, J.


Leach, W.
Potts, John S.
Sunlight, J.


Lessing, E.
Pringle, W. M. R.
Terrington, Lady


Linfield, F. C.
Purcell, A. A.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Livingstone, A. M.
Raffan, p. W.
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Raffety, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Loverseed, J. F.
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Tinker, John Joseph


Lunn, William
Rathbone, Hugh R.
Tout, W, J.


McCrae, Sir George
Raynes, W. R.
Turner, Ben


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Rea, W. Russell
Turner-Samuels, M.


McEntee, V. L.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Varley, Frank B,


Macfadyen, E.
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Mackinder, W.
Richards, R.
Viant, S. P.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Vivian, H.


Maden, H.
Ritson, J.
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


March, S.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)
Warne, G. H.


Marley, James
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Kinc'dine. E.)
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Romeril, H. G.
Welsh, J. C.


Maxton, James
Ropner, Major L.
Westwood, J.


Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Scrymgeour, E.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Middleton, G.
Scurr, John
Whiteley, W.


Millar, J. D.
Seely, H. M (Norfolk, Eastern)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Mitchell, R. M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Mond, H.
Shepperson, E. W.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)


Montague, Frederick
Sherwood, George Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Morel, E. D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Morris, R. H.
Simon, E. D.(Manchester, Withington)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Windsor, Walter


Moulton, Major Fletcher
Smillie, Robert
Wise, Sir Fredric


Murray, Robert
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Murrell, Frank
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wright, W.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


O'Grady, Captain James
Snell, Harry
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Oliver, George Harold
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.



Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Spence, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—-


Owen, Major G.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Sir Cyril Cobb and Mr. Herbert


Paling, W.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Morrison.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Allen, Lieut.-Col Sir William James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Elveden, Viscount
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B, M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
FitzRoy, Capt. Rt Hon. Edward A.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Becker, Harry
Forestier-Walker, L.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remer, J. R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Blundell, F. N.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bonwick, A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Robert Croft
Harland, A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brass, Captain W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Henn, Sir Sydney H
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Savery, S. S.


Brunner, Sir J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Stanley, Lord


Burman, J. B.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland, Northrn.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frase


Calne, Gordon Hall
Huntingfield, Lord
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cassels, J. D.
Jephcott, A. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Waddington, R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ward, Lt Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Warrender, Sir Victor


Chamberlain, Rt, Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Lamb, J. O.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lane-Fox, George R.
Wells, S. R.


Clayton, G. C.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lumley, L. R.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Cope, Major William
McLean, Major A.
Wilson, Colonel M. J. (Richmond)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Meller, R. J.



Deans, Richard Storry
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dunn, J. Freeman
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Nail and




Mr. E. C. Grenfell.


Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

New CLAUSE.—(Condition of contributions.)

The Minister of Health shall not make it a condition of granting or withholding the contributions to the expenses incurred by the local authorities in the building of houses authorised in Section two that these houses shall be built of any particular material, or by any particular persons or groups of persons, or that the material necessary for such building shall be in any way restricted from purchase in the cheapest market at home or abroad.—[Mr. Masterman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
After the dramatic scenes of this evening, I propose to be short and dull. The second is much easier than the first. There are two points in this Amendment. The first is a point which I think the Minister of Health has already accepted, carrying out the intention of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for East Willesden (Mr. A. Johnstone) earlier in the Debate, that is to make sure that any Minister of Health in the future shall not make it a condition that a trust or combine shall be formed by shutting out foreign competition. The chief reason we consider this necessary is because the report of the Building Materials Committee, when it was submitted to the Ministry of Health, did very definitely advocate the shutting out of this competition, and we should rather prefer that what we desire should be in the Statute than that it should not be done; otherwise we see visions of such trusts and combines completely ruining the building industry.
The second object of the Amendment is to make it quite sure—and I think the Committee will agree with it, because there are Amendments on the Paper with the same object from all parties—that no handicap shall be offered to the provision of houses at any time with new, and perhaps cheaper, materials than those at present employed. To start with, I think it is exceedingly necessary in connection, especially with small country rural and city authorities—some of which I know well, but whose names I do not wish to bring out at this stage—[An HON. "Why not?"] I think it is quite likely you may have a vested interest created by the very members of those authorities for building a certain type or kind against any new kind
of building which may be better. I am sure the House will not want such an occasion to arise. There are other Amendments practically desiring to carry out the same idea to be moved, I think, by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), and others. I believe the Minister of Health has a form of words which he is going to submit to the Committee. I think the Committee is unanimous in its desire to carry these two objects. Therefore I will await his reply, for I am not in the least concerned to the words of my Amendment if we can get suitable words from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I propose to submit, at. the proper time and place, an alternative Clause, which I hope will cover the points raised in the new Clause now proposed, and also the main points in the new Clauses standing in the names of the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) and the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). My proposal will be as follows:

"(1) In approving proposals for the construction of houses under this Act the Minister shall not impose any condition which would prevent the materials required being purchased in the cheapest market at home or abroad or which would require the employment of any particular trade.
"(2) If at any time it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that a local authority have, without reasonable cause, refused to adopt a new material or method of construction wit in his opinion would reduce the cost at the house without unduly affecting its durability, suitability or appearance, the Minister may make such deduction from the Amount of the contribution payable by him as in his opinion is reasonable having regard to the amount of the unnecessary expenditure so incurred by the local authority, but for the purpose of Paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section Three of this Act the expenses of the local authority shall be calculated as if no such deduction had been made."
The effect of these cords is that they ensure freedom to purchase in the cheapest market at home or abroad, to employ any trade or class of people whom they consider suitable for the erection of the houses, and if the Minister of Health be satisfied that the particular form of material will satisfy all the needs of house building, and he informs the local authority to that effect, and if the local authority insist on building by the older and more costly material, then the unnecessary expenditure incurred by the
local authority will not rank for subsidy. That is the gist of the Clause I suggest, and I hope it will be accepted.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: The proposed new Clause which the Minister has just read out deals with two points. The first has reference to the conditions which might limit the purchase of materials to those produced in this country. I hope that the materials used, as far as possible, will be produced in this country, but it would be going too far to make it a condition that they should be purchased in this country, because that would put the local authorities at the mercy of the trades in this country.
The second part of the Clause deals in some measure with a subject on which I moved an Amendment at an earlier stage of our proceedings. I also was concerned with the possibility that some new method of construction or some new material might be discovered which would enable us to get houses at a very much lower cost than anything we can see to-day. The Minister rejected my Amendment on the ground that it was unnecessary. It was one which would have enabled him to reduce the contribution from the Exchequer in such a case. Now he has got a curious Clause which enables him to reduce his contribution only in the event of the local authority refusing to adopt such a new method of construction or new material. What about the case where the authority does not refuse to accept, but where, on the contrary, the local authority—which is the first to gain by any such new method, because the first result would be to reduce its contribution of £4 10s. per year—what if the local authority come forward with such a proposal? Why in that case should the Exchequer continue to pay the sudsidy at what is an unnecessarily high rate? It seems to me to be a curious sort of idea that the Minister should only exercise this power when the local authority does not do what is in its own interest. While I do not want to delay the Committee by opposing this new Clause, I wish to reserve to myself the right to move an Amendment to it on Report, with a view to giving the Minister the power, which he does not take for himself, of reducing contributions where they prove to be entirely unnecessary.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I should like to be assured that the phrase "cheapest market at home or abroad" will not in any way prevent the usual Fair Wages and Conditions Clause from being included in municipal contracts. Such a clause is imported into the contracts of nine out of every ten municipalities, and it necessarily prevents a municipality from purchasing in the cheapest market. The cheapest market may be a sweated market, and that is precisely the reason why the Fair Wages and Conditions Clause is imported into such contracts. I think that the Committee ought to be assured that the phrase "cheapest market at home or abroad" is only used with the qualification that the Fair Wages Clause is duly observed, and I trust that the new Clause which the Minister is drafting for a further stage of this Bill will make it perfectly clear that the Fair Wages Clause is going to be preserved in municipal contracts, and that encouragement is not to be given to the purchase of sweated commodities either at home or abroad.

Mr. MASTERMAN: As I understand, the Minister is going to move his own Clause, in order that it may he before the House prior to the Report stage, I ask leave to withdraw mine.

Colonel GRETTON: The Clause has been rather carefully prepared to deal with the whole case. It is not before the Committee, so I must not argue the particular proposal, but we are now plunging into very deep water. The right hon. Gentleman has promised to introduce the Clause on the Report, stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate the Clause will be the subject of revision and criticism on Report. An hon. Member has put in certain reservations. He claims the Fair Wages Clause. The Fair Wages Clause applies to sheltered industries in this country, and does not apply to the purchase of material which may be in competition with material produced in this country. We are getting into very deep water. The right hon. Gentleman is going to protect the man who erects the building but not the man who produces the material of which the building is constructed. The proposal I suggest for the consideration of the Committee, and which I hope to raise on the Report stage, deals not so much with these controversies between various
sections of the working people but deals with the question on much broader lines. Irrespective of any Fair Wages Clause or whether the materials are produced in this country or elsewhere, the Minister should employ the most economical method and construct the houses in the best way he can, having regard to the general convenience and suitability of the houses and to economy. I reserve to myself full liberty to examine and, if necessary, to criticise the Minister's words when we come to the Report stage.

Mr. BECKER: In moving the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman said certain things to which I take very great exception. He moved it with his usual brilliance and sagacity, but he inferred that other parties in the House seem out to establish trusts and combines. I think I should not be allowed—

Mr. MASTERMAN: Nothing was further from my intention. I said in the Building Materials Report there was a suggestion that there might be a combine by eliminating foreign competition.

Mr. BECKER: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but I think others in his party say publicly that they are against trusts and combines, especially in building materials. I have vivid recollections of it quite recently. There are very few trusts and combines in existence when there are not prominent Members of the party below the gangway at the head of them. I am very pleased to find that some Members from the Clyde are at last coming round to the point of view that the workers who produce the goods for our use should be paid a fair wage. I quite agree that if materials are supplied from abroad the worker should be paid a fair wage, similar to the wage of the worker here. The fair wages Clause should certainly be inserted, especially in so far as foreign goods are concerned.

Sir B. REES: If this Amendment be. withdrawn, does it mean that the Amend merit in the name of the Noble Lady the. Member for Perth and Kinross (The Duchess of Atholl) is withdrawn also?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I was going to ask if I would be allowed to withdraw if the New Clause specifically covers the ground of my Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I was assuming that that would meet the general concurrence of the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I do not think that the Clause that the Minister has read out goes far enough. If persons are considering erecting houses under a new system—

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee must realise that the New Clause will come up in its proper place.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: When the Clause comes forward I was going to suggest to the Minister that he should try to import into it—

The CHAIRMAN: Any Amendment to the Clause can be brought forward when the Clause comes up.

Captain Viscount CURZON: The Clause hinges on the question of whether we are to purchase in the cheapest market at home or abroad. It seems to me if we pass that Clause we are to set up a perfect paradise for profiteers overseas. There seems to me to be nothing in the Clause to prevent any unscrupulous individual who may wish to make large profits for himself and his fellow directors for organising the sources of supply abroad and retailing the material to the municipal authorities here. That is not a very good way of providing work for the British workman, and I am surprised at the attitude of hon. Members opposite on this question. So long as I have a chance of fighting to get work for the British workman, I shall make that fight.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Only one borrower to provide financial means to carry out scheme.)

In order to prevent competition of many borrowers and the consequent increase in the rate of interest for financing the scheme there shall be only one hot-rower on behalf of all authorities, who shall relend the moneys required for financing these houses on the same terms and conditions as they shall have borrowed. [Mr. Franklin.]

Brought up, and road the First time.

Mr. FRANKLIN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
12.0 M.
I want to point out how important a part finance plays in the whole of this
housing question. The Minister of Health may provide the labour and the materials, and may even build the houses, but if by means of competition the interest which has to be paid exceeds a certain percentage, then it is a case of good-bye to the whole scheme. We must remember that every quarter per cent. rise in the interest on the money that has to be borrowed means an extra sixpence per week in the rent of the house. Therefore every possible effort must be made to finance the scheme, both directly or on behalf of the various localities on the lowest possible basis. The basis on which the present scheme has been framed is somewhere between £4 13s. 6d. and £4 15s. per cent. On the last occasion when the Addison scheme was being put into operation, there was a big competition for money among the various local authorities. We ought to take warning from that. We do not want similar wrangling on this occasion. In 1920–21, when the arrangements for raising money was under consideration, one fairly large Cathedral town was offered the necessary cash at 5¼ per cent. It refused it at the then current rate, but finally had to pay between 6½ and 6¾ per cent., and I want to press on the Committee this point that that extra l½ per cent. involved an addition of 3s. per week to the rents. It is, therefore, very necessary that there should be as little competition as possible between those who want the money. The bigger towns and cities, with bigger and more important credit, will be able to borrow money at a reasonable rate, and the smaller local authorities will be left out in the cold unless something is done for them. Another lesson which we may draw from the past is the fact that a large number of local authorities were driven to borrow money at high rates. They either could not use the money, or else, having fixed the period for which the loan was to be made over a long period, substantial profit was given to those who provided the money. I will give an instance within my own knowledge. Money was raised by a locality not very far from Glasgow at per cent. for a period of 60 years. Within two years, 15 per cent. premium was paid to the lucky investor in the first instance: that is to say, £115 was paid for every £100 originally paid. In the present Budget there is
provision for an amount of loss, because certain sums of money were borrowed by one local authority which wanted to pay back its loan, and the loss fell upon the Treasury.
I suggest that in any loan that is made the period should be not exceeding 40 years with a proviso that any time after 15 years that loan may be repaid, because 15 years is the period of the building programme and 40 years is the full period of the subsidy. There will be no difficulty in carrying out the proviso, and at the end of 40 years the local authorities ought to have been able to make such a sinking fund as will repay the whole amount. Given these conditions it is generally thought to be possible that, if there is no very great competition on the part of local authorities to secure the first money, a loan could be issued at 4½ per cent. running for 15–40 years, at a price somewhere between 95½, and 96, which would so operate that if the loan should be paid back after 15 years there would he a certain premium paid so that those who find the money now would not be or should not be in any way damaged. It has been asked whether it would be possible to arrange to borrow this money locally at lower rates. There is at present some borrowing by local authorities of small amounts of money at fairly low rates of interest. One local authority has been borrowing small amounts at 4½ per cent. and paying 4⅞ per cent. for a quarter of a million, and the possibility of various local authorities raising money themselves for their own special purposes has to be qualified by this, that a large number of the places which want houses more particularly are not the places where any large amount of money is pressing for investment, and you could hardly expect localities to have that sort of general love for other localities which would induce them to supply them with money at a lower rate than the current rate at which they can invest their money, and when you consider that labour is getting its full wage, that materials are being paid for at the full rate, and that contractors are getting the full amount which they ought to get you can hardly expect the investor to lend money at less than the current rates of interest.
A suggestion which is possibly worth considering is that money might be raised at 4 per cent. provided that in some way or other by means of a drawing, those people who were lucky enough to have their number drawn should have the first call to the house. That would mean that the subscriber to a £5 security, bearing 4s. interest per annum, should be entitled to a share in the drawing for the privilege of having his houses first of all, and that this might induce people to lend money at a lower rate. The question of gaming, I should think, would hardly come into it because it would mean a decision as to which of those who were providing the money should get the house. It is said that if this were instituted nothing would be done for the discharged soldier or sailor, but if anyone were lucky enough to draw a nomination for the next produced house he could show his public spirit by making it over to the soldier or sailor. I will deal now with other possibilities. It has been suggested that, with a view to raising money somewhat cheaply, the money might be raised in America, but from my knowledge of the conditions in New York I can say that the New York market is hardly educated enough to take foreign loans even—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. This is a Clause simply to enable one authority to borrow money to lend it to another, and there is nothing in this Clause which deals with nominations for soldiers or sailors, or with borrowing in America, and I submit that reference to these matters is out of Order.

Mr. FRANKLIN: May I point out that I am suggesting that there should be one borrower, and I am suggesting how that money could be borrowed at the lowest possible rate.
If any scheme is arranged—I hope one will be arranged—for the purpose of allowing the tenant-owner to purchase his house, then if we have a 15–40 loan, we shall enable the amount that goes to the sinking fund to be used at the same rate of interest as that at which the money is borrowed. The difference between a rate of 4¾ per cent. and the nominal rates of 4 per cent. and 3 per cent., is this: at 4¾ per cent. the house would be purchased by the tenant-owner for 1s. 8½d. a week; if 4 per cent. only were allowed for the
sinking fund it would cost 25. 0½d. per week, and 2s. 6½d. would be demanded if the rate of 3 per cent. were paid. When we are discussing the question of the keeping down of the cost of money, we have to deal with the possibility of having only one authority. I know well that this will be opposed by some of the larger authorities. One of the largest has already said that it would help by borrowing for other authorities. On the last occasion, long after the time when the rate on money had gone up, we came to a sort of grouping under the Goschen scheme. I want this to be taken note of and to be done before we have succeeded in making the burden of the scheme something beyond what this particular rate would bear. I specially commend to the Treasury the utmost consideration of the one important factor, that the whole scheme must depend upon the rate at which money is raised, and that, therefore, any mismanagement of the financial clauses, whether on tile part of the Treasury or the local authorities will practically kill the whole effect of the Bill.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I regret that a new Clause of such importance has been reached at so late an hour. If I cannot say more than a few words about it, from the point of view of the Treasury, hon. Members will understand that that is not because we underrate its importance in any way. The point which my hon. Friend has in mind is the possibility of competition for money by the local authorities and others under this housing scheme, that the rates for the money will be forced up to such an extent as to impose an additional burden on the Exchequer, on the local authorities and on the taxpayers generally. I need not say it will be the object of the great majority of Members of the Committee, if not of all, to avoid a result of that kind which would impose a very heavy and unjust burden upon housing schemes. May I make it perfectly plain at this stage that the Clause which the hon. Member has put on the Paper, if inserted in the Bill, would not achieve the object he has in view because it is, I think, by common consent purely declaratory in form and does not provide the machinery necessary for carrying a purpose of the kind into effect. While making this statement about the Clause
those who represent the Treasury owe a duty to the Committee to put the case from two points of view—first the point of view of a possible use of the Local Loans Fund in order to meet the difficulty and second from the point of view of a device similar to that of the Goschen Committee which was set up in 1920 to prevent certain abuses in the financing of the housing schemes then under discussion. With regard to the suggestion that there should be a wide extension of the Local Loans Fund, the Committee knows that it is only available in cases of authorities who have a rateable value not exceeding £200,000 and in the ease of Scotland, not exceeding £250,000. If any attempt were made to deal with this difficulty by way of the Local Loans Fund it is plain we should have to effect what would be virtually a revolution in that direction. It is quite true there have been certain large issues to replenish the Local Loans Fund because of housing and other demands, but if the limits of rateable value were taken away we should require to have a very large issue of stock to replenish that Fund in order to place money at the disposal of local authorities at some convenient rate. The whole principle of the Local Loans Fund in the past has been to make the Fund self-supporting as far as possible and the rate of interest to be charged must cover not merely the dividends on the 3 per cent. stock but also the cost of administration and other charges. Quite frankly, if the Committee asked for any Treasury advice on this proposal, I should say at once, that this is not the way in which to meet the hon. Member's proposal.
I come therefore to the second proposal, which is one I venture to recommend to the Committee. Hon. Members will recall that in 1920 a Committee was appointed, under the chairmanship of Mr. Goschen, to consider the general finances of housing schemes at that time and also to consider whether the Local Loans Fund should be extended to authorities which lay outside the limits of rateable value. That Committee was able to adopt the device of grouping local authorities in certain districts and arranging loans on the best terms which in those very difficult times were available. This problem is not nearly so simple as some hon. Members seem to think. In view of the
difference of conditions among local authorities you have the varying securities which they are able to offer and above all you have the problem of grouping together local authorities whose financial outlook has differed materially in times gone by You can only work such a scheme with the co-operation and good will of the local authorities and I have no doubt whatever that on further examination this proposal would get the support of every hon. Member from that point of view. I, therefore, suggest to my hon. Friend who has proposed this Clause, that if he agrees to withdraw it, I will give an undertaking of an administrative arrangement which will be substantially similar to the Goschen Committee device in 1920–21, and, so far as we can secure their cooperation, group these local authorities, get the best financial terms we can possibly obtain, and so safeguard the Exchequer, the taxpayers and the authorities themselves against an abuse, which is admitted, and which we know to be a very real danger unless we take steps to prevent it.

Mr. FRANKLIN: On the assurance of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The following proposed New Clause stood on the Order Paper in the names of Captain ELLIOT and Captain BOURNE:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Powers of local authorities in building houses.)

In carrying out any building programme under this Act a local authority shall retain full power to fix the number of houses which it will build in any period subject to the limitation of a maximum number by the Minister, and also full power at its discretion to suspend building operations for any reason whatever at any time, and that such suspension shall not involve the imposition of any burden upon the rates or other penalty.

Captain ELLIOT: The Minister has already accepted the principle in this Clause, and, consequently, I do not propose to move it.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Powers of county councils.)

(1) The powers conferred upon local authorities by Section five of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, may be exercised by a county council, and any expenses incurred by a county council there under shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes.

(2) The provisions of Section eight of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, so far as they relate to the borrowing of money by a county council, shall apply in the case of any money borrowed by a county council for any of the purposes aforesaid.

(3) Money borrowed by a county council under any powers conferred on them by the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1923, or this Act, shall not be reckoned as part of the total debt of the council for the purpose of any limitation on borrowing imposed by any Act of Parliament.—[Sir Herbert Nield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope this Clause will be accepted by the Minister, because his Department is fully aware of the abuse this Clause seeks to correct. At the present time, under the existing housing legislation, it is possible for a local authority to adopt the Act, and so oust the jurisdiction of the county council. In cases where county councils have applied for loans for housing, the local authorities have been able to destroy the power of the county councils and yet not use the loans applied for. In other words, instances have come to the notice of the county councils where, unless this power be given to them, the opportunity of getting assistance from the local authorities has been wholly destroyed. There is one more aspect, and that is that the rate of interest at which county councils can borrow is very much lower than the terms at which small local authorities can raise money.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I propose to accept this Clause.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Security of tenancy of assisted houses.)

Where a house has been provided by a local authority or by a society, body of trustees, or company within the meaning of Section Three of The Housing, etc., Act, 1923, and in respect thereof a contribution has been made under the said Act as amended by this Act, then, while the tenant of the house is a person to whom the same has been let while in the employment of the landlord or with a view to his being so employed, any provision in the contract of tenancy under which such person holds which authorises the landlord to recover possession by notice to quit or re-entry, or to require payment of an increased rent by
reason of the tenant ceasing to be in such employment, shall be void.—[Mr. Paling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. PALING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to remove a long-standing grievance which has existed, particularly in the part of the country from which I come. It has been the case for the last few years in our districts, which are subject to a rapidly increasing population, which the authorities have been trying to meet, that in the houses that have been built by the colliery companies, and not subject to the Rent Restrictions Act, scores of tenants have been turned out of those houses immediately they have left the employ of the colliery companies who built the houses. These houses were built years ago, and did not come under the Rent Restrictions Act, and the colliery companies were empowered, in these circumstances, to turn out these people. In my own district we have built 600 houses. When we started to build, we had about 250 applicants on the books. We built round about 600 and let them. At the present time, we have 800 applicants on the books, and we are getting behind, which means that in a good many cases people have been waiting as long as three years for a house, and have not got one yet. in all these cases where colliery companies have turned on to the street people who have left their employ, we on the council have had to put these people in front of others who have been waiting for three years, and, in many cases, houses owned by the colliery companies have been let to people who have come straight into the district. The object of this Clause is that, under this scheme, where a subsidy is paid to any company who may build houses, the Rent Restrictions Act shall apply, or such restrictions that the colliery company shall not be at liberty to turn out the tenants as they have done in the past. If public money is used for this purpose, the citizens ought to have some say in this particular matter, and we move this Clause to give some protection in future to tenants who live in these houses.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I hope the Committee will agree to accept this Clause. It. seems to me that all parties in the
House having from time to time condemned the tied-house system, would be very unwise if they commenced now with a housing scheme that is going to perpetuate that system for another 60 years. If, as we all hope, houses are going to be erected in large numbers by societies and companies, it is obvious that unless a clause of this description is accepted the tied-house system is going to obtain for the lifetime of these houses. In view of the hardships that have. been inflicted upon large numbers of workpeople, I think that when public money is being handed over to companies and societies we should get an assurance that when workpeople are compelled to leave their employment, owing perhaps to the small wage or the very bad conditions, they ought not to be subjected to immediate eviction. Last year the Minister of Health said he would give careful consideration to the introduction of a similar provision in the Housing Act of 1923. That was not done, and only last week there was a case of the eviction in my Division of a man with five or six children because he was compelled to leave the colliery he was working at because of the impossible low wages which would not permit him to maintain his family in decency. The Clause would not prevent the erection of houses by companies, for in practice there is no necessity for this power being left in the hands of companies. Our experience is that when an individual leaves a colliery for a district five or six miles away he is much more anxious to get his wife and family along than the colliery company are to dispossess him from their premises.

Mr. BECKER: I think this is rather a fatuous Amendment, because it will not attain the object desired. We have been expressly referred to colliery companies, but so far as I can see it means any house built by any employer, anywhere. If, for instance, a man wants to engage a coachman or a gardener he will say: I will give you so much wages and the rent will be counted as part of your wages." In that case, when the agreement is terminated, the man will have to clear out. That is the sort of thing that will be encouraged. The Amendment will really open up a vast amount of abuse.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have no doubt, if the Committee accepts the course I am going to ask it to accept, means of evasion
will be found by people interested in finding those means. I had some difficulty in accepting the Clause because their is a great deal to be said on both sides. There is the case of the man who provides money to house his own employés, and the man who occupies the house while in his employment leaves that employment and goes to the service of a man who has not provided houses. In that case the employer will find himself in the position of having to provide housing accommodation for the employés of a firm who has not been so progressive as his own firm, while at the same time he is deprived of the opportunity of housing men who are now in his own employment. That was one side. The other side was that in giving him what seemed to me a strong material claim to his house I had to face the responsibility of inflicting what I regard as one of the greatest punishments that can be imposed on women and children, and it was because I felt that. I ought to put the human claims of the women and children before the material claims of the owner of the house that I decided to accept this Clause.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must say that this is a most startling decision on the part of the Minister. Under the provisions of the Clause the tenant is to be given a freehold in this house and is not to be turned out at all, though he has left the employment of the owner. As the Minister says, this man may have left the employment of the owner and gone into the employment of a rival firm, yet he is to be kept in his house as long as he likes, evidently. The position is an absolutely impossible one, and it will have the effect of preventing a colliery company or anybody else from building any more houses. I say at once I am perfectly certain no business concern, colliery company or otherwise, will build another single house. They build them for their own workpeople, and obviously these people must leave the houses in order that other men employed by the colliery company can get in their place. For the sake of the Bill, I am going to ask the Minister to reconsider the most extraordinary decision he has made and to withdraw the assent he has so hurriedly given.

Mr. H. SPENCER: I can imagine nothing that is going to stop house building more than this proposal. If I may
remind the Committee there have been model villages built by manufacturers. The village of Sutton in my constituency is an example. Not a house could have been built there if this Bill had been in force. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Scotland?"] I have nothing to do with the administration of Scotland. We get a little tired of hearing about Scotland. I want to confine my remarks to my own district which I know. I want to remind the Committee that to-day in my own city we are spending some millions of pounds in a new water scheme. We are building cottages for the navvies. Is there any reason in saying that these cottages should not be occupied by the navvies? Should they have a freehold if this reservoir had not been built. I have never heard anything that will kill cottage building to a greater extent.

Sir DOUGLAS HOGG: I should like to add my appeal to the Minister to reconsider a decision which I cannot help thinking he has taken by inadvertence. I am sorry he has not the assistance of the Attorney-General on the front bench because if he had had that assistance I cannot think he would have expressed his assent to this new Clause. What does it involve? It does not merely provide that the people who have built houses for their work-people cannot ask them to leave when they cease to work for them. That would be bad enough, but it puts the work-people in a much more favourable position, because the provision is that
any provision in the contract of tenancy under which such person holds which authorises the landlord to recover possession by notice to quit or re-entry, or to require payment of an increased rent by reason of the tenant ceasing to be in such employment, shall be void.
It means that you cannot turn them out even if they do not pay any rent, or commit any breach of tenancy or let the house get into disrepair.

Mr. PALING: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] On a point of Order!

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Chairman will tell him if he is not in Order.

Mr. PALING: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the last line but one of the Clause which says
or to require payment of an increased rent by reason of the tenant ceasing to be in such employment shall be void.
This implies that the ordinary and normal rent will continue to be paid. These words are only used in our Clause because we have cases in our own district where, when a miner leaves his work if he cannot leave forthwith they can increase his rent and do so by 3s., 4s., or 5s. per week.

Sir D. HOGG: The hon. Gentleman's interruption shows how unfortunate it is that the Law Officers of t he Crown are not present. I really think the hon. Member is quite mistaken. It is quite true the Clause provides among other things, that the landlord may require an increase in the rent, but it also provides that
any provision in the contract of tenancy which authorises the landlord to recover possession by re-entry shall be void.
The owner cannot recover his house nor any payment for rent unless there is a provision in the contract of tenancy which enables him so to do, and that is called a provision for re-entry. But the provision for re-entry is to be void by the words of this Clause. It is perfectly true that tenants will remain liable to pay the rent, but it is equally true that you will not he able to turn teem out. Apart, therefore, from the objections put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. H. Spencer) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, if this Clause be accepted, you entirely kill all private building for it puts anyone who builds a house for his own workpeople in a worse position even than the ordinary landlord. I think it is a very dangerous Clause.

Mr. WHEATLEY: If the sole objection of the right hon. Gentleman to this Clause is that it would put the owner of the house under this provision in a worse position than the ordinary landlord, I shall, with the assistance of my legal advisers, insert such words on Report as will ensure that he is not put in any worse position. Subject to that, I shall continue in the attitude I have taken up.

Sir B. REES: Apart altogether from other questions, I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Mover of this New Clause. I know there are hardships in many colliery districts. I know the district to which the lion, Gentleman refers. There are grave disabilities owing to the shortage of houses, but the serious part here is that you are going to take out
part of the voluntary effort. You are going to cripple the societies and the combinations. No one is going to suggest that up to now the Public Utility Societies formed by these colliery societies have not done their duty. There is not a colliery company in the country who will build under this scheme. You are going to ruin the voluntary part of the Bill,

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: There is only one point I will put very shortly in this matter. It is that a company in a district of this kind is very likely a large ratepayer in the district. Not only that, but the company provides subscriptions, and is also, as has been pointed out, providing the houses. I would suggest to the Minister that a company being also large ratepayers would be even further mulcted in the relief of rates, and for that reason I suggest that he should reconsider his attitude.

Captain BOURNE: There is one other point. I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister. We have heard a great deal of the people who have been turned out of their houses, but he has not referred to the hardships of those who have been offered an appointment, but who cannot find a house to live in. I can assure the hon. Member that it. is a point pressing very hardly on people who would be only too glad to take up a job if they could get a house, and that is, a consideration to be borne in mind.

Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I should like to put one other point. I have very great sympathy with these cases, hut I feel that the difficulty could be met in some other way. With regard to city companies moving their works out into the country, they have to be able to provide in the neighbourhood of the new site of their works housing accommodation for the persons who are going to be employed there, and unless and until they are in a position to build sufficient houses for those who are going to be employed by them to work in more new and salubrious surroundings, you cannot get workmen to move out of great cities. If the firms who are prepared to do this and go to this expense are not able to retain those houses when they have built them for the occupation of their own employés, you will not get any firms to undertake that very desirable task of removing their works into the neighbourhood of growing cities or suburbs or otherwise into the country. That is a very strong reason why this Clause should he seriously re-considered.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Might I appeal to the Committee that the point at issue is quite clear, and ask them to come to a decision to-night?

Mr. BECKER: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Question "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 137.

Division No. 179.]
AYES.
[1.0 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Kirkwood, D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lawson, John James


Ayles, W. H.
Greaten, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Leach, W.


Banton, G.
Groves, T.
Linfield, F. C.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Grundy, T. W.
Loverseed, J. F.


Broad, F. A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Lunn, William


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
McEntee, V. L.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Macfadyen, E.


Buckle, J.
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Mackinder, W.


Charleton, H. C.
Haycock, A. W.
Maden, H.


Church, Major A. G.
Hayday, Arthur
Marley, James


Clarke, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Maxton, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Montague, Frederick


Costello, L. W. J.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Crittall, V. G.
Hirst, G. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hoffman, P. C.
Moulton, Major Fletcher


Dickson, T.
Hudson, J. H.
Naylor, T. E.


Dukes, C.
Isaacs, G. A.
Oliver, George Harold


Dunnico, H.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Paling, W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Perry, S. F.


Egan, W. H.
Jewson, Dorothea
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.


Gibbins, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Purcell, A. A.


Gillett, George M.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Richards, R.


Gosling, Harry
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ritson, J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)
Sullivan, J.
Whiteley, W.


Romeril, H. G.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Seely, Rt.Hn.Maj.-Gen. J.E.B.(I. of W.)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Toole, J.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Sherwood, George Henry
Tout, W. J.
Williams. Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington.)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Turner, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Varley, Frank B.
Windsor, Walter


Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Warne, G. H.
Wright, W.


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Snell, Harry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)



Spence, R.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Spero, Dr. G. E.
Welsh, J. C.
Mr. John Robertson and Mr.


Stephen, Campbell
Westwood, J.
Parkinson.


NOES.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Gorman, William
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Alstead, R.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
Phillips, Vivian


Atholl, Duchess of
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Raffan, P. W.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Harland, A.
Rathbone, Hugh H.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Becker, Harry
Hartington, Marquess of
Rea, W. Russell


Betterton, Henry B.
Harvey, C. M. B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Black, J. W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Bonwick, A.
Hindle, F.
Remer, J. R


Bourne, Robert Croft
Hobhouse, A. L.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Briant, Frank
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Huntingfield, Lord
Ropner, Major L.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roundell Colonel R. F.


Brunner, Sir J.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buckle, J.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burman, J. B.
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Savery, S. S.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shepperson, E. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Chapman, Sir S.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Clayton, G. C.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kedward, R. M.
Starmer, Sir Charles


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Keens, T.
Steel, Samuel Strang


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cope, Major William
Lamb, J. Q.
Stranger, Innes Harold


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lane-Fox, George R.
Sunlight, J.


Darbishire, C. W.
Laverack, F. J.
Terrington, Lady


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lessing, E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Lumley, L. R.
Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dodds, S. R.
McLean, Major A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Kinc'dlne, E.)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Eden, Captain Anthony
Millar, J. D.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wells, S. R.


Elliot, Walter E.
Mitchell R. M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Mond, H.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ferguson, H.
Morris, R. H.
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A.C.(Honiton)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Murrell, Frank
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L (Exeter)



Gates, Percy
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Owen, Major G.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Nall and


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Lieut.-Commander Burney.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
What has happened is that the Minister, purely for electioneering purposes, at one o'clock in the morning, has accepted a Clause moved from the back Benches which is outside the spirit of the Bill, will go a very long way to ruin the Bill, and will stop house building, which the right hon. Gentleman professes to want to get
carried. I think his proper course is to adjourn our proceeding to-night.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I hope the Committee will not accept the Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman, even if he does intend to press it to a Division. We have come almost to the conclusion of our labours, and I hope in the interests of the business of the House we shall get to the Committee stage before we rise. The Government propose to accept the decision of the Committee.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 174.

Division No. 180.]
AYES.
[1.10 a.m.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atholl, Duchess of
Ferguson, H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward. A.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Gates, Percy
Remer, J. R.


Becker, Harry
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bourne, Robert Croft
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ropner, Major L.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harland, A.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bullock, Captain M.
Harvey, C. M. B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Savery, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Shepperson, E. W.


Burney. Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Huntingfield, Lord
Steel, Samuel Strang


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Chapman, Sir S.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Clayton, G. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lamb, J. Q.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Cope, Major William
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Wells, S. R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Dawson, Sir Philip
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison-Bell,Major Sir A. C.(Honiton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Elliot, Walter E.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Commander Eyres-Monsell and




Colonel Gibbso


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mackinder, W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grigg, Lieut.-Col, Sir Edward W. M.
Maden, H.


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Marley, James


Alstead, R.
Grundy, T, W.
Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Kinc'dlne, E.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Ayles, W. H.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Banton, G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Millar, J. D.


Barrio, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mitchell, R. M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Mond, H.


Black, J. W.
Haycock, A. W.
Montague, Frederick


Bonwick, A,
Hayday, Arthur
Morris, R. H.


Briant, Frank
Hayes, John Henry
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Moulton, Major Fletcher


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)
Murrell, Frank


Brunner, Sir J.
Hindle, F.
Naylor, T. E.


Buckle, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold


Charleton, H. C.
Hobhouse, A. L.
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)


Church, Major A. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Owen, Major G.


Clarke, A.
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Paling, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, J. H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Isaacs, G. A.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Perry, S. F.


Costello, L. W. J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Crittall, V. G.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Phillipps, Vivian


Darbishire, C. W.
Jewson, Dorothea
Potts, John S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Purcell, A. A.


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Raffan, P. W.


Dickson, T.
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford


Dodds, S. R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rathbone, Hugh H.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rea, W. Russell


Dukes, C.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Dunnico, H.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kedward, R. M.
Richards, R.


Egan, W. H.
Keens, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Finney, V. H.
Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.


Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Laverack, F. J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)


Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Lawson. John James
Romeril, H. G.


Gibbins, Joseph
Leach, W.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Gillett, George M,
Lessing, E.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Gorman, William
Linfield, F. C.
Sherwood, George Henry


Gosling, Harry
Loverseed, J. F.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Lunn, William
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Macfadyen, E.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Toole, J.
Williams, Dr. J, H. (Llanelly)


Snell, Harry
Tout, W. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Spence, R.
Turner, Ben
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)


Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Varley, Frank B.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Spero, Dr. G. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, R. J (Jarrow)


Starmer, Sir Charles
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Windsor, Walter


Stephen, Campbell
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Welsh, J, C.
Wright, W.


Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees)
Westwood, J.
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Stranger, Innes Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.



Sullivan, J.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Whiteley, W.
Mr. Warne and Mr. John


Thornton, Maxwell R.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Robertson.


Tinker, John Joseph




Question put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 5 of 13 and 14, Geo. V., c. 24.)

In Section Five of The Housing, etc., Act, 1923—

(a) The word "houses," wherever it occurs shall be deemed to include, and always to have included, flats and blocks of flats; and
(b) Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) shall be read as though the words "ninety per cent. of" were omitted.—[Mr. Comyns-Carr.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
With regard to the first point, Section 5 of the Act of 1923 provides for advances being made: by local authorities to persons who are willing to build houses. This has been considered by some of the principal local authorities, certainly by the London County Council, and it has been thought that it does not apply to flats. I do not think that was ever the intention of Parliament, and the object of these words is to make it plain that the London County Council and other bodies should have power to make advances under the Section for the purpose of flats as well as for single houses. The Government have put down an Amendment to the Schedule which is thought to meet this point. Personally, I am not at all sure that it does meet it, but if the Minister wishes the point to be met, and will consider between now and Report Stage whether the words he has put down do meet the point, I should not press this matter now.
The other matter which the new Clause proposes to deal with is also an Amendment of Section 5. It proposes to leave out the words "ninety per cent. of." At the present time local authorities may only advance 90 per cent. of the value of the proposed house which is to be built, and the effect of this Clause if carried would be to enable them to advance the
whole value of the house. I quite realise that to an ordinary commercial lender it is essential to provide for a margin, and the margin provided is generally substantially more than 10 per cent. But here the local authority is making a loan to a person who will provide his own house in lieu of the obligation which it would otherwise have to undertake of having to build a house for him. Therefore, I submit there is no reason why it should not take the whole risk, because it is not greater than it would be if it built the house itself. We have heard it often that many working people cannot afford to buy their own houses. At the present time the only thing which prevents them is the necessity of finding this 10 per cent, of the purchase price, which means that on a house of the valise of £500 he has to put down £50. If the local authority had the power to advance the whole amount that difficulty would disappear, and the working man who desired to build a house would have no more difficulty in doing so than in renting it. What he would have to pay by way of interest and sinking fond would be little, if anything, more than he would have to pay for rent.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am advised that the first part of the Clause is met by the Amendment which I have put on the Paper and which will be moved in due course. With regard to the second, I should have thought that 90 per cent. is a very substantial part After all, you must give the man who proposes to own the house some financial interest in it. If the local authority advances nine-tenths of the money that is really going a long way to enable him to take full advantage of this.

Sir ROBERT KAY: At the present time local authorities are only able to advance 90 per cent. of the value, not the cost, and the difference between value and cost which a purchaser would
have to find, even if the Amendment be accepted, is more than is found in ordinary cases where a person is buying a house, and the value and the cost price are approximately the same. The Corporation and building societies lend only a proportion of value. Even if you lent 100 per cent. of the value, the purchaser would have to find a substantial sum of money.

Mr. BECKER: Does the Amendment imply that anybody under this scheme who builds tenements will be allowed to build them, and get the Government subsidy? I suggest it is entirely against the spirit of this Bill and the housing scheme. The whole object of the Bill is to provide every Englishman with his castle or his own house with a respectable piece of land with it, and this Amendment makes it possible to build blocks of flats. It should be rejected with no uncertain voice. I am not sure if the Minister of Health is accepting the Amendment, but if he decline to do so, I will support him and I hope those around me will also do this. It is iniquitous to say that more tenement houses, such as have brought all the trouble on the Clyde should be built in England under this scheme.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Contribution in respect of late completion.)

The failure to complete a house before any date specified in this Act or any order made there under shall not render invalid any undertaking to make a contribution or give assistance in respect of the house if the. Minister is satisfied that the construction of the house or necessary work of development on or about the site preliminary thereto was begun within a reasonable time and that the failure to complete the house before the said date was due to circumstances over which the local authority, society, body of trustees, or company constructing the house had no control.—[Captain Elliot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Amendment was put down at the request of the City of Glasgow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The City of Glasgow wants a little attention paid to its schemes. I understand from the Minister that the things we desire to have by this New Clause are covered by the Bill, and if he gives us that assurance I should be
perfectly willing not to move the Clause on this occasion. It concerns Section 4 of the 1923 Act, which was put in to cover the case of the authorities who cannot complete their houses within a certain time, owing to unforeseen circumstances.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I am not quite clear about the Clause. Presumably, the-Glasgow Corporation is not looking so far forward as 1929. No doubt changes have been made in the other Acts. Something must be put into the Bill to deal with houses not constructed within a definite time, and when the Order comes before the House, clearly it would be a matter for the House to decide whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case at the time, adequate time is allowed for all houses to be completed in the new class. I think the hon. and gallant Member may take it that any Order would have regard to the point he raised. Certainly this House would have such regard.

Captain ELLIOT: It also gives a certain amount of discretion to those whose housing schemes might be held up. If an Order were made determining a scheme, some area might lag behind, and I take it that in the drawing up of an Order it would be possible for a Minister to allow a certain amount of discretion.

Mr. GREENWOOD: There would be something put into the Order to extend that for a further period.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Before the Clause be withdrawn, we should like to be assured that it was moved in the interests of Glasgow Corporation.

Mr. A. YOUNG: I should like to confirm the statement made on the other side.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I beg, on behalf of the Glasgow Corporation, to suggest that this Amendment should he withdrawn.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Materials and methods of construction.)

(1) In approving proposals for the construction of houses under this Act the Minister shall not impose any condition which would prevent the materials required being purchased in the cheapest market at home or abroad or which would require the employment of any particular trade.

(2) If at any time it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that a local authority have, without reasonable cause, refused to adopt a new material or method of construction which, in his opinion, would reduce the cost of the house without unduly affecting its durability, suitability or appearance, the Minister may make such deduction from the amount of the contribution payable by him as, in his opinion, is reasonable, having regard to the amount of the unnecessary expenditure so incurred by the local authority, but for the purpose of paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section three of this Act the expenses of the local authority shall be calculated as if no such deduction had been made.—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I have already explained this Clause to the Committee.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Suspension of building operations.)

A. local authority, in carrying out any proposals approved by the Minister for the purposes of this Act, shall have power to determine the number of houses which they will build in any particular period subject to the imposition of a maximum limit by the Minister, and should the local authority find it necessary to suspend building operations on the ground of excessive cost, or on any other reasonable ground, the suspension shall not be treated as a failure on the part of the local authority to fulfil their obligations as to the preparation of schemes under the Housing Acts or their obligations under any such schemes.—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with the possible suspension of the building operations by the local authorities. The Committee will remember the point, of issue that has arisen between us as to whether I had done anything to deprive the Ministry of the powers proposed by the Bill. I promised to move a Clause that would give the local authorities all the protection that was promised or expected and this is the Clause.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

First Schedule agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Sir C. COBB: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 12 and 13.
This Amendment is designed with the view of relieving the local authority of the obligation to provide a separate room for a bath. The reason for it is that we have found by experience that it adds very materially to the cost of the housing if you have to provide a separate room for a bath. We have found that it is very much cheaper and more convenient to have a bath combined with the water closet or scullery. We have found it is so much more convenient to the tenant in a cottage for a bath to be combined in one room, and in that way you save something like 16 per cent on the cost of the house. When you have a flat, it has been found by experience, it is very much better that the bath should be in the same room and all matters connected with washing done in one part of the house. Another reason is that by this arrangement, you get your hot water on the spot in the same room where you get your bath. After all, the tenants want as few rooms as possible. I suggest that it should be left to the discretion of the local authority whether there should be a separate room for the bath.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: The arguments of the hon. Member are arguments that have been heard in this House on many occasions, but in a matter of this kind I submit that it would not be in the public interest, in a large scheme of this kind, that we should take the opportunity of making a separate bathroom in a front room, and I hope the Committee will support the scheme.

Lord E. PERCY: The adoption of the Schedule in its present form will not make a separate bathroom a compulsory condition in all houses, for the Minister would still retain the dispensing power that a fixed bath is not necessary or desirable. There might be some argument for the Minister taking this line if it were a question, as it was a question last year, of stimulating private enterprise and having builders building all over the country, but the people on whom you are imposing this condition now are the local
authorities themselves, and I do not believe that the standard of housing existing in Whitehall is higher than the standard existing in other localities. If local authorities cannot find the accommodation demanded, certain local authorities are not to be trusted with the administration of the, Act. I think the local authorities should be trusted.

Mr. BECKER: I rise to speak on the question of baths. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment was trying to leave things where they were. If he was speaking of 30 years ago, there was hardly any bathrooms at all. I am not in agreement with having bathrooms in the scullery. I can see the disadvantage of such a proposal. The bath is countersunk in the floor anti wood is put over the top of the bath so that when people want to have a bath they have to pull up the floor. I want to see all these houses with a bathroom, but am in favour of having a bathroom in a separate room. I oppose this Amendment because I think, under the scheme which is very expensive, we can easily afford a bathroom.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The Parliamentary Secretary, to my mind, has made a most startling suggestion in this proposal of a separate bathroom. There is no question of public health involved, and I defy him to prove his point. As regards the question of decency, that is a matter that ought to be left to the local authority as the hon. Member for Hastings has already said. As regards whether the bath should be upstairs or downstairs is a question of vital importance to the kind and class of family to be provided for. In our London County Council schemes we find that in certain districts or areas and according to certain needs a separate bathroom is required upstairs and in other circumstances you requite a bathroom downstairs.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to go into the, question of whether the bathroom should be upstairs or downstairs.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I wanted to show the Parliamentary Secretary that there is no question of health involved. The public health is brought in as a matter of fact as claptrap. If anybody ought to know about public health
it should be myself. Anything that goes to increase the cost of the house unnecessarily should be left to the latitude of authorities and not definitely ruled in.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I want to make a protest against the reactionary doctrine expressed by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. Where it is a question of a higher standard of decency and comfort, there should be a, separate bathroom. In the North there is a great desire to have this higher standard of decency and comfort. I only regret that this higher standard was not regarded in the matter of the size of the house and other conveniences which have been sacrificed for other reasons.

Mr. BLACK: From the experience I gained as chairman of the housing committee in my area, I can say that the tenants do not require separate baths, because the special bath area has to be deducted from the 950 feet which is the superficial area of the house. If you ask the tenants if they would prefer a separate bathroom and smaller bedrooms, or whether they would have a bath in the scullery or in some other place, they would prefer to have the extra room in the bedrooms. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether it would not he reasonable to leave the decision in this matter to the local authorities, who are well advised as to the public desire. There is no reason for forcing a local authority which knows the desires of the citizens of its area along a particular path. I do not see why we here should say to every local authority "whether you want it or not," and to the tenant "whether you want it or not, we insist on you having a separate bathroom." I would appeal to the Minister to leave the discretion in the hands of the local authorities.

Viscount CURZON: I rise to protest against the attitude of the Under-Secretary in dealing with this question of baths. He has accused my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham of wishing to stabilise bad housing conditions. What are he and the Government doing by this Bill—stabilising rabbit hutches and pill boxes. How can the hon. Gentleman say, merely because we think that under certain conditions it might be preferable to have a bath room combined with a w.c., that it is evidence that we want bad
houses. If he knew more he would know that some of the most valuable rated property has a bathroom and w.c. combined. The hon. Gentleman is much more interested in scoring debating points than in coming down to the facts of the question. The fact is that you must leave a question of this sort to the local authorities who know much more about it than any little jumped up Jack in office in Whitehall.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): If the Noble Lord applies that expression to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, he would not be in order, and he ought to withdraw.

Viscount CURZON: I feel that I have a perfect right to make a descriptive statement of that sort, but if you order that the statement should be withdrawn, I withdraw it.

Mr. PRINGLE: It is an expression which has been frequently used in former times in reference to people in the Government, irrespective of the Government of the day. I do not see why the Noble Lord should withdraw it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think if the hon. Gentleman will look at the

records, he will find that the words have been held to be out of order on some occasions, and not on others. I hope he will not try to incite the Noble Lord.

Viscount CURZON: I will not repeat the statement, but I would like to ask the Minister whether the question of cost is the really important factor? If by insisting on a separate bathroom you are going to increase the cost of the house the question conies to be, can you afford it? There is a great point in the argument of the hon. Member opposite that if you are to have a separate bathroom at the expense of the superficial area of the house, it ought to be left to the local authority.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Committee seems very largely of one mind on this subject, and I would ask my hon. friend whether he really means to press this question to a Division. On the whole, I think, the opinion of the Committee is largely in favour of a separate bathroom, and I would vote in favour of it.

Question put "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 54.

Division No. 181.]
AYES.
[2.0 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Gibbins, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gillett, George M.
Laverack, F. J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gosling, Harry
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)


Alstead, R.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Leach, W.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lessing, E.


Ayles, W. H.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Loverseed, J. F.


Banton, G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Becker, Harry
Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
McEntee, V. L.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Grundy, T. W.
Macfadyen, E.


Bonwick, A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Mackinder, W.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maden, H.


Briant, Frank
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marley, James


Broad, F. A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Maxton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Haycock, A. W.
Millar, J. D.


Brunner, Sir J.
Hayday, Arthur
Mitchell, R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Buckle, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Mond, H.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Montague, Frederick


Church, Major A. G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Morris, R. H.


Clarke, A.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Costello, L. W. J.
Hobhouse, A. L.
Murray, Robert


Crittall, V. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Murrell, Frank


Darbishire, C. W.
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Naylor, T. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hudson, J. H.
Oliver, George Harold


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Isaacs, G. A.
Paling, W.


Dickson, T.
Jackson, R. F, (Ipswich)
Perry, S. F.


Dodds, S. R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jewson, Dorothea
Phillipps, Vivian


Dukes, C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Egan, W. H.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Purcell, A. A.


Finney, V. H.
Jones, C, Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Raffan, P. W.


Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford


Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Rathbone, Hugh R.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Kedward, R. M.
Rea, W. Russell


Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stranger, Innes Harold
Whiteley, W.


Ritson, J.
Sullivan, J.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sunlight, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Romeril, H. G.
Terrington, Lady
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W)
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thornton, Maxwell R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sherwood, George Henry
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Toole, J.
Windsor, Walter


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Tout, W. J.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Varley, Frank B.
Wright, W.


Snell, Harry
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Spence, R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)



Spero, Dr. G. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Starmer, Sir Charles
Welsh, J. C.
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Warne.


Stephen, Campbell
Westwood, J.



NOES.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Harland, A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Atholl, Duchess of
Hartington, Marquess of
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Richardson, Lt.-Cot. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hindle, F.
Ropner, Major L.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Huntingfield, Lord
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Black, J. W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bourne, Robert Croft
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Shepperson, E. W.


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Kedward, R. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bullock, Captain M.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Chapman, Sir S.
Lamb, J. Q.
Steel, Samuel Strang


Clayton, G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Kinc'dine. E.)
Wells, S. R.


Ferguson, H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gates, Percy
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Sir Cyril Cobb and Lieut.-Colonel




Fremantle.


Question put, and agreed to.

The following Amendment stood on the Paper in, the name of Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR:

In page 9, line 12, at the, end, insert


Section 1 (2)
After the words "five hundred superficial feet" there shall be inserted the words "and provided further that in any area prescribed by the Minister in which the population is engaged in the fishing industry any garret space required by the occupier of a house for the storage of fishing nets and gear, and not used as habitable accommodation shall be excluded from the measurements in computing the maximum of nine hundred and fifty feet."

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is out of Order.

Mr. MILLAR: May I speak to the Amendment that is in my name? I venture to submit to you, Mr. Entwistle, that surely I am entitled to ask why the Amendment is out of Order. The purpose of the Amendment is to include a certain amount of garret space for storing fishing nets. It is provided under the Act of
1923, in Section 1 (2), that the measurements shall be calculated in accordance with the rules made by the Minister. Now the Minister has made rules in regard to the calculations which exclude a number of spaces in the houses which are being built; for instance, outbuildings. I submit it is perfectly competent within the resolution that the Minister shall exercise his powers to provide sufficient accommodation for the storage of nets in garrets or outbuildings in places where there is a fishing population. I may also draw attention to the fact that this question was debated on Wednesday night or Thursday morning, when the Chairman drew attention to the fact that there was an Amendment standing in my name which he said would come up at a later stage. The Debate then switched off to another subject. This is not a question of going outside the Financial Resolution. It only asks the Minister to exercise the power he already has to provide the necessary space for the fishing districts and thus enable them to secure the houses they would not otherwise get.

Sir CHARLES BARRIE: May I reinforce what the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) has said? If something of
this sort were not allowed, it would practically mean that no fishing houses would be built on any of the coasts of Scotland.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon Member is in order to submit his point of Order, to which I have given very careful attention. With regard o to the other point as to what the other Chairman said on the previous Amendment, that is out of the present discussion. The proper time to have discussed it would have been at the later stage mentioned, provided it had been in order. But because an Amendment is on the Order Paper, it does not mean it is in order. I think, after careful consideration, that the Amendment is not in order. The point raised does not affect the Amendment of the hon. Member, which must be in the terms of the Financial Resolution, and that is clearly limited to the size and type of houses in the other Act. I am sorry, but I must confirm my ruling that the hon. Member's Amendment is out of order.

Mr. MILLAR: We are to take it that, on account of the Financial Resolution, the fishermen are to suffer throughout the country?

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 13, at the end, to insert the words
and such houses shall not be built at the rate of more than twelve to the acre unless otherwise sanctioned by the Minister on the recommendation of the local authority.

Mr. GREENWOOD: It certainly was the intention that this should be accepted, though not in this form. It shall be raised on Report, and the question of the number of houses per acre shall be incorporated.

Mr. BLACK: I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this position. In the city from which I come (Leicester) there is a considerable quantity of land which cannot be bought for less than eight shillings to ten shillings a square yard. If you are going to have 12 houses to the acre, that will mean 403 square yards will he required, and if the land is going to cost 10 shillings to the square yard, that will be £202 for the land alone on which the houses are going to be built. I can inform the Committee that within my absolute knowledge there have been hundreds, if
not thousands, of houses built where the land has cost 18 shillings a square yard. What applies to Leicester will also obtain with regard to a large number of cities throughout the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] The land is very near to the centre of the city, and in many cases streets have been laid out and houses put on the streets which have been made. If you are going to lay down as a sine qua non that a house must have at least 403 square yards, you are going to make these houses cost so much that you will drive people out beyond the outskirts of the town. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. SUNLIGHT: I would—[Interruption.]

Mr. BLACK: Shut up!

Mr. SUNLIGHT: On a point of Order. I wish to ask if any hon. Member is in Order in asking another Member to "shut up"? I was only going to call attention to the fact that there is a proviso in the Amendment dealing with this point.

Mr. BLACK: I am sorry that I used an expression which I should not use in ordinary circumstances, but the interruption just interfered with my argument with regard to the statement that there is going to be a very general exception made by the Minister, I would say that if it is going to be very general, and not in a very rare case, I do not think it ought to be put in the Bill. My firm conviction about the matter is that up and down the country you will find scores and scores of cases where the Bill will work to the disadvantage of the housing question, to the disadvantage of the people who want to live in these houses, to the disadvantage of the people who own the land and to the disadvantage of the local authorities.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 9, line 13, at the end, insert


"Section 2 (5)
The words 'house will be completed before the said first day of October, and that the other' shall be omitted."

In page 9, line 14, column 1, leave out "(a)."

In page 9, column 2, leave out lines 23, 24 and 25, and insert instead thereof the words:
After the words 'the same house' there shall be inserted the following words, 'In the case of an advance for the construction of one or more structurally separate and self-contained flats the estimated value for the purposes of the foregoing limitation shall, as respects any flat, be the estimated value of the flat.'"—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]

Second Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: The Minister has been good enough to promise on Report to meet points raised from this and other quarters of the Committee. It is extremely important that these Amendments should be put on the Order Paper at the earliest possible moment. I want to ask whether we may expect them to be placed on the Paper on Wednesday morning?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I can promise the Committee that what my hon. and gallant Friend asks will be done, if possible. Whether it can be done by Wednesday morning, I am not sure. If it can be, the Committee can rest assured that it will be.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 218].

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Two o'clock a.m.